Comments on: Wind shifts

By: John Shade

John Shade — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:32:55 +0000

The windfarms are unpleasant to see as they despoil landscapes and seascapes, and they eat up taxpayers’ money in subsidies. And it feels worse on those relatively few occasions when they are rotating, since then I know they are making almost all of us still poorer thanks to the generous feed-in tariffs they generate for their owners – payments well above what other sources of electricity can earn in the marketplace. The more the wind blows, the poorer we get as this surcharge is paid by putting surcharges into consumer electricity bills.

By: Alexander K

Alexander K — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:42:17 +0000

Thanks for the compliments, Richard – always nice to know that my scribblings are appreciated!

By: Peter Fraser

Peter Fraser — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 03:43:48 +0000

Good article and interesting comments. One correction New Zealand does not lie in the trade wind belt which generally can be expected from 30 degrees north to 30 degrees south, NE in the northern hemisphere and SE in the southern. These tradewinds are separated by the doldrums from westerly winds at higher latitudes. New Zealand predominantly lies in the roaring forties. The tradewinds with their reliability and speed seldom above thirty knots would perhaps be a more efficient locale for wind turbines. Unfortunately that is not where the main power demands are.

Thanks, Peter. Interesting information. The trade winds were confused with the roaring forties in a lightly-informed mind! I’ve altered the comment. – Richard

By: Australis

Australis — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:48:28 +0000

Alexander, what is the source of the cross-party political drive in UK to lead the world in climate fanaticism?

There is an enlightening debate at http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/134 between Oliver Letwin, policy chief of the Conservative Party, and Nigel Lawson. Both have first class economics degrees from Oxbridge, and energy backgrounds. Neither relies much on “the science” and the dispute is all about energy security and competitiveness.

One can understand that UK feels vulnerable with North Sea sources running down, and being at the far end of pipelines from Russia.

Are the days of coalminers’ strikes too hardwired into British political psyches to consider using the resource which drove the industrial revolution and made Britain a superpower?

If so, perhaps all the greenspin IS merely a softening-up process to make nuclear acceptable. Or is that too machiavellian?

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 12:08:56 +0000

Interesting comments, Alexander; as usual, you’re a pleasure to read. I didn’t know the “Royal Estate” could charge rent for the seabed. It’s certainly true that Fukushima has demonstrated a terrific robustness to relatively old designs but surprisingly we haven’t heard anything of that from the mainstream media. Yes, good news about Delingpole. The UEA should have their noses rubbed in those misdeeds. We must keep pushing the ‘forgotten’ climate science controversies, for the science of “global warming” is the reason we have an ETS and we’re talking about replacing coal and oil. If science actually denies a climate problem, it negates any reason for an ETS. As Jo Nova said recently: “This is why I insist: Yes, this IS about the science… While people think a carbon tax is bad, but believe that “carbon is pollution”, we have won a battle but lost the war.”

By: Alexander K

Alexander K — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:25:13 +0000

The article above is generally good news for New Zealand’s energy security and it is very reassuring that the quality of common sense has not totally disappeared from the political class.
As a (temporary) resident in the UK, I have watched the Labour then the Coalition governments attempt to egg each other on over adopting so-called ‘renewable energy options’, particularly wind energy, both behaving like small boys daring each other to do something both daft and dangerous. Cameron’s statement that ‘This going to be the greenest government ever’ proves that the man is totally away with the fairies when it comes to anything to do with science or reality.
The mad part of the UK business is that the country sits on top of enormous good-quality coal reserves which, under current energy policies, will largely remain untouched while bigger and bigger wind farms are installed. The cost to a nation coping with straightened circumstances due to the recent financial problems is beyond reason – the only winner is the Royal Estate, which owns the seabeds and charges a healthy ground rent for the offshore monstrsities. Small wonder the eco-loon Prince Chuckles is keen on them, as they are bringing in millions for the family business! The big losers are the poor and elderly; the UK already has the worst figures in the EU for deaths of the elderly due to cold and this is not about to improve as fuel poverty deepens. Many of the rural poor and elderly rely completely on fuel oil for heating and that has risen to almost double in price over the last few months, making oil tanks a target for the large-scale organised crime which flourishes there; as an indicator of this, thefts of Land Rovers Defenders (which can be completely stripped with hand tools and a simple engine hoist in an afternoon) large tractors, quad bikes and other farm equipment has reached epidemic proportions. The old crime of stock rustling is also huge too, with entire herds vanishing into the night!
But all is not lost here; there is a growing belief in some reasonably astute circles that the country’s rulers are quietly softening up the general public for a massive programme of building new-generation nuclear-powered electricity generators. Just in the last few days there has been a massive outpouring of support for nuclear powered generation from the very groups and prominent individuals that opposed nuclear in any shape or form so vehemently and for so long. The events at Fukushima are currently being exploited as a demonstration of how safe nuclear has proven to be in the face of epic disaster, which is an incredible change in attitude.

It’s brilliant news that Dellingpole has been cleared of the silly charges that the UEA brought against him. This will rebound back at them in spades, in my view.

By: Ron

Ron — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:01:28 +0000

great, brought a smile to my face. I liked this:

“The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware of the context of the columnist’s robust views – clearly recognisable as his subjective opinion – that the scientists were “untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions”, and that their work was “shoddy” and “mendacious”. In the circumstances, it did not consider that there had been a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.”

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 22:05:27 +0000

On the subject of Delingpole, I see he has won his case with the Press Complaints Council, over his remarks on UEA

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/