• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Climate change: the true price of the warmists' folly is becoming clear

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Climate change: the true price of the warmists' folly is becoming clear

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ing-clear.html

    Impeccable was the timing of that announcement that directors of the Met Office were last year given pay rises of up to 33 per cent, putting its £200,000-a-year chief executive into a higher pay bracket than the Prime Minister. As Britain shivered through Arctic cold and its heaviest snowfalls for decades, our global-warming-obsessed Government machine was caught out in all directions.

    For a start, we saw Met Office spokesmen trying to explain why it had got its seasonal forecasts hopelessly wrong for three cold winters and three cool summers in a row. The current cold snap, we were told with the aid of the BBC – itself facing an inquiry into its relentless obsession with “global warming” – was just a “regional” phenomenon, due to “natural” factors. No attempt was made to explain why the same freezing weather is affecting much of the northern hemisphere (with 1,200 places in the US alone last week reporting record snow and low temperatures). And this is the body on which, through its Hadley Centre for Climate Change and the discredited Climatic Research Unit, the world’s politicians rely for weather forecasting 100 years ahead.

    Then, as councils across Britain ran out of salt for frozen roads, we had the Transport Minister, Lord Adonis, admitting that we entered this cold spell with only six days’ supply of grit. No mention of the fact that the Highways Agency and councils had been advised that there was no need for them to stockpile any more – let alone that many councils now have more “climate change officials” than gritters.

    Then, with the leasing out of sites for nine giant offshore wind farms, there was Gordon Brown’s equally timely relaunch of his “£100 billion green revolution”, designed, in compliance with EU targets, to meet a third of Britain’s electricity needs. This coincided with windless days when Ofgem was showing that our 2,300 existing turbines were providing barely 1/200th of our power. In fact, 80 per cent of the electricity we used last week came either from coal-fired power stations, six of which are before long to be closed under an EU anti-pollution directive, or from gas, of which we only have less than two weeks’ stored supply and 80 per cent of which we will soon have to import on a fast-rising world market.

    In every way, Mr Brown’s boast was fantasy. There is no way we could hope to install two giant £4 million offshore turbines every day between now and 2020, let alone that they could meet more than a fraction of our electricity needs. But the cost of whatever does get built will be paid by all of us through our already soaring electricity bills – which a new study last week predicted will quadruple during this decade to an average of £5,000 a year. This would drive well over half the households in Britain into “fuel poverty”, defined as those forced to spend more than 10 per cent of their income on energy.

    Finally, following Mr Brown’s earlier boast that his “green revolution” will create “400,000 green jobs”, there was the revelation that more than 90 per cent of the £2 billion cost of Britain’s largest offshore wind farm project to date, the Thames Array, will go to companies abroad, because Britain has virtually no manufacturing capacity.

    At last, in all directions, we are beginning to see the terrifying cost of that obsession with “global warming” and “green energy” which for nearly 20 years has had all our main political parties in its grip. For years governments, including the EU, have been shovelling millions of pounds into the coffers of “green” lobby groups, such as Friends of the Earth and the WWF, allowing them in return virtually to dictate our energy policy. Not for nothing is a former head of WWF-UK now chairman of the Met Office.

    The bills for such follies are coming in thick and fast. Last winter’s abnormal cold pushed Britain’s death rate up to 40,000 above the average, more than the 35,000 deaths across Europe that warmists love to attribute to the heatwave of 2003. Heaven knows what this winter will bring. And remember that the cost of the Climate Change Act alone has been estimated by our Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband at £18 billion every year until 2050 – a law that only three MPs in this Rotten Parliament dared oppose. Truly have they all gone off their heads.

    #2
    It is very difficult being Gordon Brown. It's all very well for Christopher Booker to criticise, but I'd like to see if HE could get absolutely everything wrong, all of the time, like Brown achieves.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post

      Then, with the leasing out of sites for nine giant offshore wind farms, there was Gordon Brown’s equally timely relaunch of his “£100 billion green revolution”, designed, in compliance with EU targets, to meet a third of Britain’s electricity needs. This coincided with windless days when Ofgem was showing that our 2,300 existing turbines were providing barely 1/200th of our power.
      These figures are based on small land based turbines

      There is no way we could hope to install two giant £4 million offshore turbines every day between now and 2020, let alone that they could meet more than a fraction of our electricity needs.
      Finally, following Mr Brown’s earlier boast that his “green revolution” will create “400,000 green jobs”,


      Yes we can, and
      Offshore renewables will create 60,000 + new jobs

      there was the revelation that more than 90 per cent of the £2 billion cost of Britain’s largest offshore wind farm project to date, the Thames Array, will go to companies abroad, because Britain has virtually no manufacturing capacity.
      Dealing Directly with building the supply chain for offshore wind farms for the past year, I have come to realise that very few manufacturers in the UK are capable of meeting the demand, are unwilling to commit to retooling to meet the requirements or are simply far too expensive.
      Those (very) few that are willing and able, I have fronted for inclusion in the supply chain.

      Scaremongering and blatantly inaccurate reporting from people who know little or nothing about the industry is not helping matters. The potential UK suppliers and service providers also read these idiotic statements and baulk at committing themselves, therefore the work goes to places like Bremerhaven which has become a well developed boom town with thousands of new jobs because of offshore wind generation.

      The attitudes in this country has nearly forced me several times to recommend continental suppliers and Ports for offshore support, but thankfully there are some in this country that would like to see the benefits come to the UK.

      Before posting or writing absolute crap, people should do some research for themselves, or ask those in the industry that know the full story.

      http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...-success-story

      Why hasn't our industry invested?
      Last edited by Diver; 10 January 2010, 12:48.
      Confusion is a natural state of being

      Comment


        #4
        When are they going to build the freaking Seven barrage?

        It's right that we should exploit our windy shores, not least because we've squandered what natural resources we once had. At least the wind won't run dry. What's frightening (for those not coining it in the industry) is that the turbines, the entire structure, only last 20 years before it has to be completely replaced. Jobs boomed indeed.

        Comment


          #5
          Diver how do wind turbines sensibly contribute to baseload capacity; they are based on an inherently unreliable resource (i.e. wind) and I would not trust the MET office to predict its availability.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
            When are they going to build the freaking Seven barrage?
            They probably won't. The initial experiments in such things quickly demonstrated that hindering water flow in estuaries causes silting which costs a small fortune to keep clearing and it completely buggers up the water-dependent environment, including the birdies. You mustn't upset the ickle birdies, especially in wetlands.
            My all-time favourite Dilbert cartoon, this is: BTW, a Dumpster is a brand of skip, I think.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
              When are they going to build the freaking Seven barrage?
              Interesting article including the Severn barrage -also tidal costs for producing electrickery est. @ £317 per megawatt hour vs offshore windpower costing about £85 pounds per megawatt hour.

              Spiegel
              How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Troll View Post
                Interesting article including the Severn barrage -also tidal costs for producing electrickery est. @ £317 per megawatt hour vs offshore windpower costing about £85 pounds per megawatt hour.

                Spiegel
                If the dam is anything like the Hoover dam, it could last 10,000 years, so it's a long term investment. Ours will probably be made out of sticks and last 20.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
                  If the dam is anything like the Hoover dam, it could last 10,000 years, so it's a long term investment. Ours will probably be made out of sticks and last 20.
                  The reason why the Hoover dam is so strong is that they didn't understand how forces worked and had no means of modelling it. So they way overspecced it and added in a truckload of fudge factors. The result is that the dam itself is stronger than the valley it sits in - and the concrete is still curing to this day, making it even stronger day-by-day.

                  Now we build them exactly as strong as they need to be - at least that's the theory anyway.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Addanc View Post
                    Diver how do wind turbines sensibly contribute to baseload capacity; they are based on an inherently unreliable resource (i.e. wind) and I would not trust the MET office to predict its availability.
                    Simple, take a look at the the historic metocean data for the areas earmarked for round 3 development. the data goes back an average of 25 years, and the areas chosen have been chosen because of usable and consistent wind resource.
                    Confusion is a natural state of being

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X