Hi, all,

There's a proposal to build a 12MW wind farm next to the WCML at Aston
Grange (near Weaver Junction, just north of Dutton Viaduct in Cheshire).
The four turbine towers would be 80m tall and the blades 45m radius, giving
an overall height of 125m.  Two of the four turbines would be only about
350m to the west of the track.

The German developers say that Network Rail guidelines ask for only 125m
(fallover) clearance from the railway.  However, in view of the history of
blades coming off such generators and sailing for several hundred metres
downwind (they are designed to be pretty efficient aerofoils, after all) it
seems highly plausible that a detached blade (150 feet long and weighing
about ten tonnes) could reach the WCML, with rather unsatisfactory
consequences.

Any thoughts on this?

Steve P
Acton Bridge, WCML

The message 
from "Steve Pardoe"  contains these words:


> Any thoughts on this?


You mean apart from the fact that the windmills don't work?

This particular windfarm started out as one experimental mast 200ft high
to see if the area is suitable for further developement. The scheme is
now to construct 4 x 400ft windmills and save the suitability experiment
until later. The local view is that "money talks".
 
-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

Steve Pardoe wrote:


> Any thoughts on this?


Yes: if you are going to object to the development, then I recommend you
come up with a reason that won't make you look silly.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683702.html
(51305 (Class 118) at Exeter St Davids, 1985)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:37:43 +0100, "Steve Pardoe"
 wrote:


>Hi, all,
>
>There's a proposal to build a 12MW wind farm next to the WCML at Aston
>Grange (near Weaver Junction, just north of Dutton Viaduct in Cheshire).
>The four turbine towers would be 80m tall and the blades 45m radius, giving
>an overall height of 125m.  Two of the four turbines would be only about
>350m to the west of the track.
>
>The German developers say that Network Rail guidelines ask for only 125m
>(fallover) clearance from the railway.  However, in view of the history of
>blades coming off such generators and sailing for several hundred metres
>downwind

References ?



>(they are designed to be pretty efficient aerofoils, after all)

Designed for going around in circles, not flying off into the sunset.


>it
>seems highly plausible that a detached blade (150 feet long and weighing
>about ten tonnes) could reach the WCML, with rather unsatisfactory
>consequences.
>
>Any thoughts on this ?

It's probably quicker and less painful than dying from benzene
poisoning, or skin cancer once the ozone layer has been knackered.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Steve Pardoe wrote:


> Hi, all,
> 
> There's a proposal to build a 12MW wind farm next to the WCML at Aston
> Grange (near Weaver Junction, just north of Dutton Viaduct in Cheshire).
> The four turbine towers would be 80m tall and the blades 45m radius, giving
> an overall height of 125m.  Two of the four turbines would be only about
> 350m to the west of the track.
> 
> The German developers say that Network Rail guidelines ask for only 125m
> (fallover) clearance from the railway.  However, in view of the history of
> blades coming off such generators and sailing for several hundred metres
> downwind (they are designed to be pretty efficient aerofoils, after all) it
> seems highly plausible that a detached blade (150 feet long and weighing
> about ten tonnes) could reach the WCML, with rather unsatisfactory
> consequences.


How many rotor blades have come off wind turbines then? I assume that 
this 'fact' isn't your only objection to the wind farm?

"Steve Pardoe"  wrote in message
news:SYydnZ2dnZ2fzkqWnZ2dnXFBiN6dnZ2dRVnypp2dnZ0@pipex.net

> Hi, all,

8<...

> Any thoughts on this?


Hark! The sound of nimby barrel scraping...

Tim

-- 
Sent from Birmingham, UK                    timdunne at blueyonder.co.uk
'God's electrician sparked up the heavens once again, heading northbound
on the 7:10. And the lord said let there be commuters...' - Thea Gilmore
   Look, mum, an anorak on a bike!   Check out www.nervouscyclist.org

"Steve Pardoe"  wrote in message
news:SYydnZ2dnZ2fzkqWnZ2dnXFBiN6dnZ2dRVnypp2dnZ0@pipex.net...

>
> However, in view of the history of blades coming off
> such generators and sailing for several hundred metres
> downwind (they are designed to be pretty efficient
> aerofoils, after all) it seems highly plausible that a
> detached blade (150 feet long and weighing about
> ten tonnes) could reach the WCML, with rather
> unsatisfactory consequences.
>
> Any thoughts on this?


I think you've got a few detached blades of your own to worry about.

-- 
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Steve Pardoe wrote:


>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Steve P
> Acton Bridge, WCML


Acton Bridge NIMBY in acton.

Being interested in wind power and alterntive energy sources , and
seeing the extent of such installations in Germany, I put your name
name and location into google where it threw up 70 results as yourself
as an objector to the windfarm -  as well as  network rail sub station.

Your real issue is ''not in my back yard''  


--
Nick

Steve Pardoe wrote:
Steve Pardoe wrote:


>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Steve P
> Acton Bridge, WCML


Acton Bridge NIMBY in acton.

Being interested in wind power and alterntive energy sources , and
seeing the extent of such installations in Germany, I put your name
name and location into google where it threw up 70 results that seem to
show yourself only as an objector or promoter of negative information
on the windfarm -  as well as  network rail sub station.

Your real issue is ''not in my back yard''  
 
 
--
Nick

Steve Pardoe wrote:

> Hi, all,
>


Hello Nimby



> There's a proposal to build a 12MW wind farm next to the WCML at Aston
> Grange (near Weaver Junction, just north of Dutton Viaduct in Cheshire).
> The four turbine towers would be 80m tall and the blades 45m radius, giving
> an overall height of 125m.  Two of the four turbines would be only about
> 350m to the west of the track.


I've driven past turbines closer than that.


>  However, in view of the history of blades coming off such generators and >sailing for several hundred metres


Never ever heard of that.


>
> Any thoughts on this?
>

How are you going to fight global warming then? Tell you what, why
don't you let them build a nuclear power station there instead?

-- 
Malc

"David Jackson"  wrote


> You mean apart from the fact that the windmills don't work?


If they don't work why would the promoters be willing to spend millions on 
such a development?

John.

"D7666"  wrote


> Being interested in wind power and alterntive energy sources , and
> seeing the extent of such installations in Germany, I put your name
> name and location into google where it threw up 70 results that seem to
> show yourself only as an objector or promoter of negative information
> on the windfarm -  as well as  network rail sub station.
>
> Your real issue is ''not in my back yard''


These objectors make me laugh, having been brought up in the industrial West 
Riding of Yorkshire where coal was mined and power generated by burning it, 
we became used to the muck and filth associated with both, and with the fall 
out from the steam railway that carried said coal to the power stations and 
other users.

I've no doubt Mr. Pardoe and his fellow objectors are more than happy to 
have electricity in the homes and would not wish to see that facility 
removed.  In that case they should be willing to share some of the 
inconvenience which the generation of that power brings.  After all a few 
whirring windmills are small beer compared with the inconvenience many 
suffered to provide him and his ancestors with electrical power in the past.

John.

Steve Pardoe wrote:

> Hi, all,
> 
> There's a proposal to build a 12MW wind farm next to the WCML at Aston
> Grange (near Weaver Junction, just north of Dutton Viaduct in Cheshire).
> The four turbine towers would be 80m tall and the blades 45m radius, giving
> an overall height of 125m.  Two of the four turbines would be only about
> 350m to the west of the track.
> 
> The German developers say that Network Rail guidelines ask for only 125m
> (fallover) clearance from the railway.  However, in view of the history of
> blades coming off such generators and sailing for several hundred metres
> downwind (they are designed to be pretty efficient aerofoils, after all) it
> seems highly plausible that a detached blade (150 feet long and weighing
> about ten tonnes) could reach the WCML, with rather unsatisfactory
> consequences.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?
> 

I suggest you start campaigning to ban all roads within 200m of railway 
lines.
Although I know there was a case of a blade breaking off a large wind 
turbine (New England in early '60s-it landed several miles away), the 
number of motor vehicle weighing several tonnes that come off roads and 
land on railwaylines is several orders of magnitude greater.

Jim Chisholm

"Stuart"  wrote in message
news:GDpRe.40448$5m3.39134@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Steve Pardoe wrote:
> How many rotor blades have come off wind turbines then? I assume that
> this 'fact' isn't your only objection to the wind farm?


No, but it's the one most relevant to this newsgroup.

There are a number of links at www.pardoe.net/abo/windfail.htm if you are
genuinely interested, for example to articles in "Modern Power Systems" and
"Windpower Monthly" which is hardly "The Nimby's Weekly", is it?

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Downloads/Accidents%20-%20May%2010%202005.pdf
has a collation of accidents and
http://members.aol.com/fswemedien/ZZUnfalldatei_00_02.htm carries a summary
(in German) of incidents there.  The official website of the town of
Reinsberg
http://www.gemeinde-reinsberg.de/tipps/aktuell_2.htm carries photos of a
blade which was thrown 250m in normal wind conditions.  They are not making
it up.

The data came as shock to me, too, hence my concern re the railway.  I think
the Aston turbines (which are much larger than the Reinsberg ones) should be
a lot further from the line, if they have to be there at all.

S

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message
news:r57ch110jqk52envq3teeoa0ce35l45gse@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:37:43 +0100, "Steve Pardoe"
>  wrote:
> >Any thoughts on this ?
> It's probably quicker and less painful than dying from benzene
> poisoning, or skin cancer once the ozone layer has been knackered.


I think we can all agree that climate change is a serious issue.  I used to
think that wind power was a good idea, until I started looking at the
numerical data.  If it were truly the case that wind farms such as that
proposed would have a significant effect on climate change, I would be
strongly in favour, though I might not be in favour of siting them in
needlessly inappropriate settings (green belt, ASCV, ASLEV, SSI, etc
designations all apply in this case).  I have no problem with the recent
offshore installations in Wales, for example, though the economics are not
good for consumers (but very good indeed for the wind power companies).  If
you read the Darmstadt Manifesto or the "Wind Report 2004" from E.ON Netz,
you will see what a mess has been made in Germany, with no real benefit to
the environment.

However, I'd still be interested to follow your own mathematical analysis of
the extent to which the 12MW (peak) Aston installation will mitigate the
changes brought about by avoidable power generation, and particularly on
wastage.  Relevant to the WCML is that (in Richard Catlow's estimable words)
"The advent of Pendolino trains on the WCML leads to an increase in power
demand, each unit being rated at 7.6MVA, as opposed to a class 90 at
4.8MVA".  So, each Pendolino will (at peak output) consume roughly the same
amount of _additional_ electrical power over a Class 90 (which hauled more
passengers) as each of the Aston turbines generates (at peak output).

Remind me, how many minutes is this "upgrade" saving on the timetable for
this stretch of the WCML between, say, Crewe and Carlisle?  If we are really
serious about climate change, perhaps we should be thinking about how we use
electricity, just as much as how we generate it.

Steve

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message
news:1nmwwnl96nl64.1mlmintdn4f05.dlg@40tude.net...

> Steve Pardoe wrote:
>
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
> Yes: if you are going to object to the development, then I recommend you
> come up with a reason that won't make you look silly.


Good advice.  Thank you.
S

"J. Chisholm"  wrote in message
news:df6ih6$hu1$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...

> I suggest you start campaigning to ban all roads within 200m of railway
> lines.


Not a bad idea, while unmanned Class 66's are ploughing through level
crossings ;-)

S

In message , at 11:05:08 on Thu, 1 Sep 
2005, Steve Pardoe  remarked:

>Remind me, how many minutes is this "upgrade" saving on the timetable for
>this stretch of the WCML between, say, Crewe and Carlisle?  If we are really
>serious about climate change, perhaps we should be thinking about how we use
>electricity, just as much as how we generate it.


It's also possible that on the stretches that aren't run "flat out", 
that the electricity consumption isn't any higher than the previous 
trains.
-- 
Roland Perry

Steve Pardoe wrote:

> Hi, all,
>
> There's a proposal to build a 12MW wind farm next to the WCML at Aston
> Grange (near Weaver Junction, just north of Dutton Viaduct in Cheshire).
> The four turbine towers would be 80m tall and the blades 45m radius, giving
> an overall height of 125m.  Two of the four turbines would be only about
> 350m to the west of the track.
>
> The German developers say that Network Rail guidelines ask for only 125m
> (fallover) clearance from the railway.  However, in view of the history of
> blades coming off such generators and sailing for several hundred metres
> downwind (they are designed to be pretty efficient aerofoils, after all) it
> seems highly plausible that a detached blade (150 feet long and weighing
> about ten tonnes) could reach the WCML, with rather unsatisfactory
> consequences.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>

The owners of the site and their insurance company will (should) have
made a risk assessment to determine the likelihood of any untoward
events happening and the cost of their remediation.  The insurance
premium will be set accordingly.  If it is too high, the wind farm
won't be built.  If not too high, then given that insurance is a
'perfect market', anyone affected by the risk will be adequately
compensated if an untoward event occurs. (That's the theory, at least).

The likelihood of a blade coming off and causing an incident on the
WCML is pretty low.  I'd guess lower than the risk of a car or lorry
coming off a motorway bridge, or someone deliberately halting on a
level crossing, so unless you are going to object to road bridges over
railways, or roads near cuttings, or level crossings, I think you'd be
on a hiding to nothing.

Those are my thoughts.

Cheers,

Sid

The message <df6g6u$flv$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>
from "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> contains these words:


> If they don't work why would the promoters be willing to spend millions on 
> such a development?


The local view of the "development" (I'm just as affected as Steve, BTW)
is "money talks".  The landowner gets payments of rent for the use of
the land, the developer gets government and EU grants, and then payment
for any electricity the windmills actually manage to produce.

We've seen industry building all over this area: ICI, Shell, and lots of
others.  Fidlers Ferry power station is almost in sight from where I sit
at this computer (the steam from the cooling towers is visible), the
Weaver Valley is just starting to recover from the chemical industry of
the nineteenth century - and now "they" want to stick these windmills up
for us all to marvel at. 

If they were the answer to global warming, we'd all get used to the idea
and accept them, but they're not, and never can be.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

In message  on Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:05:08 +0100
in uk.railway, "Steve Pardoe"  tapped out on the
keyboard:


> "Charles Ellson"  wrote in message
> news:r57ch110jqk52envq3teeoa0ce35l45gse@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:37:43 +0100, "Steve Pardoe"
> >  wrote:
> > >Any thoughts on this ?
> > It's probably quicker and less painful than dying from benzene
> > poisoning, or skin cancer once the ozone layer has been knackered.
> 
> I think we can all agree that climate change is a serious issue.  I used to
> think that wind power was a good idea, until I started looking at the
> numerical data.  If it were truly the case that wind farms such as that
> proposed would have a significant effect on climate change, I would be
> strongly in favour, though I might not be in favour of siting them in
> needlessly inappropriate settings (green belt, ASCV, ASLEV, SSI, etc
> designations all apply in this case).  I have no problem with the recent
> offshore installations in Wales, for example, though the economics are not
> good for consumers (but very good indeed for the wind power companies).  If
> you read the Darmstadt Manifesto or the "Wind Report 2004" from E.ON Netz,
> you will see what a mess has been made in Germany, with no real benefit to
> the environment.
> 


Unfortunately, wind power can never be a substitute for conventional forms of
electricity generation, as it produces power only at certain wind speeds
(neither too low nor too high).  I can imagine the announcements now:

"<Bing-Bong> Virgin Trains regret to announce the suspension of all train
services today, due to the wrong type of wind".

--
John Youles   Norwich   England   UK

John Youles wrote:

> In message  on Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:05:08 +0100
> in uk.railway, "Steve Pardoe"  tapped out on the
> keyboard:
>
>
> Unfortunately, wind power can never be a substitute for conventional forms of
> electricity generation, as it produces power only at certain wind speeds
> (neither too low nor too high).  I can imagine the announcements now:
>
> "<Bing-Bong> Virgin Trains regret to announce the suspension of all train
> services today, due to the wrong type of wind".


John,

I think you missed out the word 'complete' before substitute.

You are, of course, quite right - low or high wind speeds translate to
no power being available, which is why people are searching for cheap
and efficient means of energy storage that can be charged up when the
wind is blowing in a useable manner. That search may take a while...

But to drag this back on topic, if at all possible. I can find no
_credible_ reports of wind farms being especially hazardous to
railways.  On a very much smaller scale, they are actually beneficial,
as some 'remote' lineside equipment is powered by a combination of
windmills and solar cells.

Regards,

Sid

"D7666"  wrote in message 
news:1125551300.827670.172890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
> Steve Pardoe wrote:
>
>>
>> Any thoughts on this?
>>
>> Steve P
>> Acton Bridge, WCML
>
> Acton Bridge NIMBY in acton.
>
> Being interested in wind power and alterntive energy sources , and
> seeing the extent of such installations in Germany, I put your name
> name and location into google where it threw up 70 results as yourself
> as an objector to the windfarm -  as well as  network rail sub station.
>
> Your real issue is ''not in my back yard''
>
>
> --
> Nick


So you will be first to volunteer to have a wind turbine in your garden ? My 
own objection is not to wind turbines in principle, but to the blighting of 
pleasant countryside locations by these, or other, industrial structures. 
Start by sticking them between skyscapers in London and other cities.

Bevan


> 

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:25:50 +0100, "Bevan Price"
<mynameATTTTfreeukDOTTTcom> wrote:


>
<snip>
>So you will be first to volunteer to have a wind turbine in your garden ? My 
>own objection is not to wind turbines in principle, but to the blighting of 
>pleasant countryside locations by these, or other, industrial structures. 
>Start by sticking them between skyscapers in London and other cities.
>

You seem to have missed certain technical reasons why such things
aren't sited in such locations.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

The message 
from Charles Ellson  contains these words:


> You seem to have missed certain technical reasons why such things
> aren't sited in such locations.


I reckon there's plenty of room for 4 x 400ft windmills in London.
Should improve the skyline considerably. Extra interest for the
sightseers on the Eye...

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:37:43 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Pardoe"
 wrote this:-


>in view of the history of
>blades coming off such generators


It happens on rare occasions. The operators don't like it as a new
blade has to be fitted and the loss of production is not appealing
to them.


>a detached blade (150 feet long and weighing
>about ten tonnes) could reach the WCML, with rather unsatisfactory
>consequences.


I'm more concerned by forty four tonne lorries, which land on the
railway more often than wind turbine blades will.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:04:47 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>If they were the answer to global warming, we'd all get used to the idea
>and accept them, but they're not, and never can be.


Who has claimed that wind turbines are "the answer to global
warming"? I will be most surprised if you can find any respectable
organisation that has done so. Please provide evidence to back up
your assertion, or withdraw it.

Of course wind turbines are part of an answer to global warming, but
that is very different to your assertion.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:05:08 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Pardoe"
 wrote this:-


>the "Wind Report 2004" from E.ON Netz,
>you will see what a mess has been made in Germany, with no real benefit to
>the environment.


I take it that you understand the differences between the
electricity industry systems in Germany and the UK, as well as the
difference in wind speeds? If not the British Wind Energy
Association has a response to that report and the Sustainable
Development Commission also has an introduction to the differences.


>If we are really
>serious about climate change, perhaps we should be thinking about how we use
>electricity, just as much as how we generate it.


Precisely the point made by both organisations I mentioned.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:37:51 GMT someone who may be John Youles
 wrote this:-


>Unfortunately, wind power can never be a substitute for conventional forms >of electricity generation,


Incorrect.

It cannot substitute on a MW for MW basis, but as no other form of
electricity generation can produce its rated output for say 40 years
the point is somewhat moot. If you are actually interested then the
British Wind Energy Association web site is a good starting point
for information on the subject.


>as it produces power only at certain wind speeds


That is indeed the case, just as gas fired power stations only
produce electricity when gas is entering the site between certain
pressures. However, the wind speeds over which wind farms will
produce electricity are wide.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:05:00 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Pardoe"
 wrote this:-


>http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Downloads/Accidents%20-%20May%2010%202005.pdf
>has a collation of accidents 


As I recollect most of these affected only staff.



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:27:46 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>I reckon there's plenty of room for 4 x 400ft windmills in London.


I take it you are unaware of the wind turbine in Dagenham?


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:11:29 +0100 someone who may be "John Turner"
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote this:-


>I've no doubt Mr. Pardoe and his fellow objectors are more than happy to 
>have electricity in the homes and would not wish to see that facility 
>removed.  In that case they should be willing to share some of the 
>inconvenience which the generation of that power brings.  After all a few 
>whirring windmills are small beer compared with the inconvenience many 
>suffered to provide him and his ancestors with electrical power in the past.


I went on one of Mr Branson's trains from Edinburgh Waverley to
Birmingham New Street recently. Having been told about all these
wind farms despoiling the landscape I looked out for them. I only
saw two wind farms, one by Carstairs and one by Lancaster. Neither
spoilt the view, on the contrary they added to it.

I also saw the so-called power station at Chapelcross (actually part
of the nuclear weapon programme, though now out of use) and several
coal fired power stations. None of these added to the view.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Jackson wrote:

> The message 
> from Charles Ellson  contains these words:
>
> > You seem to have missed certain technical reasons why such things
> > aren't sited in such locations.
>
> I reckon there's plenty of room for 4 x 400ft windmills in London.
> Should improve the skyline considerably. Extra interest for the
> sightseers on the Eye...
>


Take it a step further, and put blades on the Eye. ;-)
Windy days might be a bit of fun <g>

"David Hansen"  wrote in message
news:sjveh1h99e7d6t89fj7p2vvtcae7512o51@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:04:47 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
>  wrote this:-
>
> >If they were the answer to global warming, we'd all get used to the idea
> >and accept them, but they're not, and never can be.
>
> Who has claimed that wind turbines are "the answer to global
> warming"? I will be most surprised if you can find any respectable
> organisation that has done so. Please provide evidence to back up
> your assertion, or withdraw it.
>
> Of course wind turbines are part of an answer to global warming, but
> that is very different to your assertion.
>

indeed, between 30-35% of the answer to be precise.
cheers
james

"David Jackson"  wrote in message
news:31303030333733334317644203@zetnet.co.uk...

> The message 
> from Charles Ellson  contains these words:
>
> > You seem to have missed certain technical reasons why such things
> > aren't sited in such locations.
>
> I reckon there's plenty of room for 4 x 400ft windmills in London.
> Should improve the skyline considerably. Extra interest for the
> sightseers on the Eye...
>

there was actually one next to the eye.
cheers
james

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> Of course wind turbines are part of an answer to global warming, but
> that is very different to your assertion.


They are a *very minor* part of an answer to gloal warming.  They are
not worth all the disruption they cause during construction or the
visual pollution they inflict on us.  More research on less intrusive
sources of renewable power supply is needed, but as long as more
windmills are being put up the Government/Council/EU/whoever can say
that they're doing their bit to stop global warming.  They're not.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> >I reckon there's plenty of room for 4 x 400ft windmills in London.

> I take it you are unaware of the wind turbine in Dagenham?


I was thinking more in terms of Regents Park, rather than the suburbs.
However, if there's one working in Dagenham, then it proves that it's a
good area for them...

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

The message <MJSRe.16615$x4.1537@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>
from "gonzo"  contains these words:


> > I reckon there's plenty of room for 4 x 400ft windmills in London.
> > Should improve the skyline considerably. Extra interest for the
> > sightseers on the Eye...
> >
> there was actually one next to the eye.


Maybe it was airbrushed out of all the photos I've seen of the Eye. 
Perhaps it wasn't 400 feet tall...

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, David Jackson wrote:


> The message 
> from David Hansen  contains these words:
> 
> > I take it you are unaware of the wind turbine in Dagenham?
> 
> I was thinking more in terms of Regents Park, rather than the suburbs.
> However, if there's one working in Dagenham, then it proves that it's a
> good area for them...


Not driven by the Girl Pipers, I trust...  [SCNR]

The message 
from "Alan J. Flavell"  contains these words:


> Not driven by the Girl Pipers, I trust...  [SCNR]


I must be getting old: I remember them, too!   <g>

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:23:39 +0100, David Jackson
 wrote:


>They are a *very minor* part of an answer to gloal warming.  They are
>not worth all the disruption they cause during construction or the
>visual pollution they inflict on us.


That, as has been said before, is a matter of opinion.  I personally
find them both attractive and impressive, so long as they are not
located so close to housing that the noise would be an issue.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

The message 
from wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) contains these words:


> That, as has been said before, is a matter of opinion.  


An opinion which we clearly don't share, I regret to say.


> I personally
> find them both attractive and impressive, so long as they are not
> located so close to housing that the noise would be an issue.


In this case (Aston Grange) the "farm" will be built on the edge of a
small village and will be surrounded by farms and cottages within a mile
or so radius.  Noise could be an issue here.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
news:b1ieh11g1abvv1k0r1ekqrnde5jpklc23b@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:25:50 +0100, "Bevan Price"
> <mynameATTTTfreeukDOTTTcom> wrote:
>
>>
> <snip>
>>So you will be first to volunteer to have a wind turbine in your garden ? 
>>My
>>own objection is not to wind turbines in principle, but to the blighting 
>>of
>>pleasant countryside locations by these, or other, industrial structures.
>>Start by sticking them between skyscapers in London and other cities.
>>
> You seem to have missed certain technical reasons why such things
> aren't sited in such locations.
> -- 
>


So why not put some in the River Thames, eg outside Parliament ? Also new 
skyscrapers could be designed to have a wind turbine on their roof.

Bevan

wrote in message 
news:1125586393.979308.280060@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> But to drag this back on topic, if at all possible. I can find no
> _credible_ reports of wind farms being especially hazardous to
> railways.  On a very much smaller scale, they are actually beneficial,
> as some 'remote' lineside equipment is powered by a combination of
> windmills and solar cells.


A lot of the facilities at the NRM's Shildon branch are powered by such 
sources - I believe the steam locos that work on the small running line are 
topped up with collected rainwater as well.

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 22:27:20 +0100, "Bevan Price"
<mynameATTTTfreeukDOTTTcom> wrote:


>
>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>news:b1ieh11g1abvv1k0r1ekqrnde5jpklc23b@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:25:50 +0100, "Bevan Price"
>> <mynameATTTTfreeukDOTTTcom> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>So you will be first to volunteer to have a wind turbine in your garden ? 
>>>My
>>>own objection is not to wind turbines in principle, but to the blighting 
>>>of
>>>pleasant countryside locations by these, or other, industrial structures.
>>>Start by sticking them between skyscapers in London and other cities.
>>>
>> You seem to have missed certain technical reasons why such things
>> aren't sited in such locations.
>> -- 
>>
>
>So why not put some in the River Thames, eg outside Parliament ? 


I understand the "hot air" version hasn't been perfected yet. ;-)


>Also new skyscrapers could be designed to have a wind turbine on their roof.
>

Is there an "overturning loads" or windloading expert in the house ? 
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 22:27:20 +0100, "Bevan Price"
<mynameATTTTfreeukDOTTTcom> wrote:


>So why not put some in the River Thames, eg outside Parliament ? 


Is there enough wind?  Also, the Thames needs to be passable.


>Also new 
>skyscrapers could be designed to have a wind turbine on their roof.


A most sensible idea, again assuming enough wind.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Bevan Price wrote:

> "Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
> news:b1ieh11g1abvv1k0r1ekqrnde5jpklc23b@4ax.com...
> 
>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:25:50 +0100, "Bevan Price"
>><mynameATTTTfreeukDOTTTcom> wrote:
>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>So you will be first to volunteer to have a wind turbine in your garden ? 
>>>My
>>>own objection is not to wind turbines in principle, but to the blighting 
>>>of
>>>pleasant countryside locations by these, or other, industrial structures.
>>>Start by sticking them between skyscapers in London and other cities.
>>>
>>
>>You seem to have missed certain technical reasons why such things
>>aren't sited in such locations.
>>-- 
>>
> 
> 
> So why not put some in the River Thames, eg outside Parliament ? Also new 
> skyscrapers could be designed to have a wind turbine on their roof.
> 
> Bevan
> 


Wind turbines on a tower block:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4648371.stm>

Domestic wind turbines:
<http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>

Ian

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:52:41 +0100, Ian Harding
 wrote:


>Bevan Price wrote:
>> "Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>> news:b1ieh11g1abvv1k0r1ekqrnde5jpklc23b@4ax.com...
>> 
>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:25:50 +0100, "Bevan Price"
>>><mynameATTTTfreeukDOTTTcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>So you will be first to volunteer to have a wind turbine in your garden ? 
>>>>My
>>>>own objection is not to wind turbines in principle, but to the blighting 
>>>>of
>>>>pleasant countryside locations by these, or other, industrial structures.
>>>>Start by sticking them between skyscapers in London and other cities.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You seem to have missed certain technical reasons why such things
>>>aren't sited in such locations.
>>>-- 
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> So why not put some in the River Thames, eg outside Parliament ? Also new 
>> skyscrapers could be designed to have a wind turbine on their roof.
>> 
>> Bevan
>> 
>
>Wind turbines on a tower block:
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4648371.stm>
>

"to service about 5% of the energy needs of the building."


>Domestic wind turbines:
><http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>
>

"around 1kw"

They would seem to be more of experimental value than a practical
method of supply.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On 1/9/05 11:05, "Steve Pardoe"  wrote:

>
> 
> I think we can all agree that climate change is a serious issue.


Whilst that might be a true statement, what is less certain is that any
current climate change is the result of direct human intervention

In article <BF3FB160.72EE%stimpy1997uk@yahoo.com>,
Stimpy   wrote:

>On 1/9/05 11:05, "Steve Pardoe"  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> I think we can all agree that climate change is a serious issue.
>
>Whilst that might be a true statement, what is less certain is that any
>current climate change is the result of direct human intervention


We can only be sure that - to date - all the evidence points that way.
And no, it _isn't_ solar variability this time. It has been in the past,
that and orbital fluctuations. It hasn't been so since 1975 at the
latest - or so the evidence indicates.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article ,
Charles Ellson   wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:52:41 +0100, Ian Harding
> wrote:
>
>>Bevan Price wrote:
>>> "Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>>> news:b1ieh11g1abvv1k0r1ekqrnde5jpklc23b@4ax.com...
>>> 
>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:25:50 +0100, "Bevan Price"
>>>><mynameATTTTfreeukDOTTTcom> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>So you will be first to volunteer to have a wind turbine in your garden ? 
>>>>>My
>>>>>own objection is not to wind turbines in principle, but to the blighting 
>>>>>of
>>>>>pleasant countryside locations by these, or other, industrial structures.
>>>>>Start by sticking them between skyscapers in London and other cities.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You seem to have missed certain technical reasons why such things
>>>>aren't sited in such locations.
>>>>-- 
>>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So why not put some in the River Thames, eg outside Parliament ? Also new 
>>> skyscrapers could be designed to have a wind turbine on their roof.
>>> 
>>> Bevan
>>> 
>>
>>Wind turbines on a tower block:
>><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4648371.stm>
>>
>"to service about 5% of the energy needs of the building."
>
>>Domestic wind turbines:
>><http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>
>>
>"around 1kw"
>
>They would seem to be more of experimental value than a practical
>method of supply.


Only 1kW/house, but there are an awful lot of houses to put them
on. One on each could make a significant contribution. 

Andy, who's thinking about where he could put just one such turbine
in his garden..

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		
		"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

> In article ,
> Charles Ellson   wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:52:41 +0100, Ian Harding
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bevan Price wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>>>>news:b1ieh11g1abvv1k0r1ekqrnde5jpklc23b@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:25:50 +0100, "Bevan Price"
>>>>><mynameATTTTfreeukDOTTTcom> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>So you will be first to volunteer to have a wind turbine in your garden ? 
>>>>>>My
>>>>>>own objection is not to wind turbines in principle, but to the blighting 
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>pleasant countryside locations by these, or other, industrial structures.
>>>>>>Start by sticking them between skyscapers in London and other cities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You seem to have missed certain technical reasons why such things
>>>>>aren't sited in such locations.
>>>>>-- 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So why not put some in the River Thames, eg outside Parliament ? Also new 
>>>>skyscrapers could be designed to have a wind turbine on their roof.
>>>>
>>>>Bevan
>>>>
>>>
>>>Wind turbines on a tower block:
>>><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4648371.stm>
>>>
>>"to service about 5% of the energy needs of the building."
>>
>>
>>>Domestic wind turbines:
>>><http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>
>>>
>>"around 1kw"
>>
>>They would seem to be more of experimental value than a practical
>>method of supply.
> 
> 
> Only 1kW/house, but there are an awful lot of houses to put them
> on. One on each could make a significant contribution. 
> 
> Andy, who's thinking about where he could put just one such turbine
> in his garden..
> 


It's enough that much of the time supply will exceed demand, hence 
sell-back to the grid and a discount on your bill. Really economical 
people make a profit from them.

On 3/9/05 20:18, "Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote:

> 
>>> 
>>> I think we can all agree that climate change is a serious issue.
>> 
>> Whilst that might be a true statement, what is less certain is that any
>> current climate change is the result of direct human intervention
> 
> We can only be sure that - to date - all the evidence points that way.


The problem is identifying the hard evidence amongst the ill-informed
tabloid journalism, panicky over-reactions, and special interest groups
trying to jump on the bandwagon of 'climate change' to justify their pet
projects.

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:40:11 +0100, Stimpy 
wrote:


>>>> I think we can all agree that climate change is a serious issue.
>>> 
>>> Whilst that might be a true statement, what is less certain is that any
>>> current climate change is the result of direct human intervention


It is actually pretty damn certain. Unless it is in your short-term
financial interests that climate change not be tackled - in which case
you may have managed to delude yourself (and others) otherwise.


>The problem is identifying the hard evidence amongst the ill-informed
>tabloid journalism, panicky over-reactions, and special interest groups
>trying to jump on the bandwagon of 'climate change' to justify their pet
>projects. 


Tabloids are hardly the place to look for hard evidence. There is
plenty, though, in scientific journals.

Stimpy  wrote:


>On 3/9/05 20:18, "Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think we can all agree that climate change is a serious issue.
>>> 
>>> Whilst that might be a true statement, what is less certain is that any
>>> current climate change is the result of direct human intervention
>> 
>> We can only be sure that - to date - all the evidence points that way.
>
>The problem is identifying the hard evidence amongst the ill-informed
>tabloid journalism, panicky over-reactions, and special interest groups
>trying to jump on the bandwagon of 'climate change' to justify their pet
>projects. 



Speaking as someone who was involved in commissioning and coordinating
a substantial programme of Government-funded research that majored on
the impacts of climate change, I would say that the "ill-informed
tabloid journalism, panicky over-reactions, and special interest
groups trying to jump on the bandwagon of 'climate change' to justify
their pet projects" are hard to find, in amongst the huge and rapidly
growing mass of authoritative scientific evidence that climate change
is happening.

Of course it isn't difficult to find determinedly ignorant people who
are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change thing.  Every
Usenet newsgroup has at least one.

;-)

On 3 Sep 2005 20:18:27 +0100, azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)
wrote:


>In article <BF3FB160.72EE%stimpy1997uk@yahoo.com>,
>Stimpy   wrote:
>>On 1/9/05 11:05, "Steve Pardoe"  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> I think we can all agree that climate change is a serious issue.
>>
>>Whilst that might be a true statement, what is less certain is that any
>>current climate change is the result of direct human intervention
>
>We can only be sure that - to date - all the evidence points that way.
>And no, it _isn't_ solar variability this time. It has been in the past,
>that and orbital fluctuations. It hasn't been so since 1975 at the
>latest - or so the evidence indicates.


I think that it would be truer to say that that is how the evidence
has been interpreted by the climate change industry. I'm intrigued by
the latest predictions about CO2 absorption by the oceans increasing
as the temperature of the water rises. I would have expected it to
fall, and the balance between atmospheric CO2 and dissolved CO2 to
shift towards the atmospheric.

Has anybody done the experiments to prove what might happen?
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

Andrew Bell wrote:

> Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
> 
>> In article ,
>> Charles Ellson   wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:52:41 +0100, Ian Harding
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bevan Price wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:b1ieh11g1abvv1k0r1ekqrnde5jpklc23b@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:25:50 +0100, "Bevan Price"
>>>>>> <mynameATTTTfreeukDOTTTcom> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you will be first to volunteer to have a wind turbine in your 
>>>>>>> garden ? My
>>>>>>> own objection is not to wind turbines in principle, but to the 
>>>>>>> blighting of
>>>>>>> pleasant countryside locations by these, or other, industrial 
>>>>>>> structures.
>>>>>>> Start by sticking them between skyscapers in London and other 
>>>>>>> cities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to have missed certain technical reasons why such things
>>>>>> aren't sited in such locations.
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So why not put some in the River Thames, eg outside Parliament ? 
>>>>> Also new skyscrapers could be designed to have a wind turbine on 
>>>>> their roof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bevan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wind turbines on a tower block:
>>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4648371.stm>
>>>>
>>> "to service about 5% of the energy needs of the building."
>>>
>>>
>>>> Domestic wind turbines:
>>>> <http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>
>>>>
>>> "around 1kw"
>>>
>>> They would seem to be more of experimental value than a practical
>>> method of supply.
>>
>>
>>
>> Only 1kW/house, but there are an awful lot of houses to put them
>> on. One on each could make a significant contribution.
>> Andy, who's thinking about where he could put just one such turbine
>> in his garden..
>>
> 
> It's enough that much of the time supply will exceed demand, hence 
> sell-back to the grid and a discount on your bill. Really economical 
> people make a profit from them.


24*365 = 8760 hours in a year.
Commercial wind farms are planned on the basis of a capacity factor of 
35%, lets assume the average domestic property is in a less ideal 
situation, so guess a capacity factor of half that.

(8760*0.35)/2 = 1533 KWh per year (for a 1KW turbine).

I use around 1000 KWh per year, as a single person living in a 2 bed 
flat, with no gas connection so all domestic energy needs are met by 
electricity.

I would love to see several of these installed on the roof, connected to 
different flats, but after the uproar created by one of the residents 
installing a satellite dish last year, I can't see the other 
leaseholders going for it.

Ian

Bevan Price  writes

>
>So why not put some in the River Thames, eg outside Parliament ? Also new
>skyscrapers could be designed to have a wind turbine on their roof.
>

  That the main source of district heating in the area, so much hot air 
vented forth when the honourable members care to sit and pontificate.

What was vaguely interesting re turbines etc. was the concept of using 
small turbines on a persons house to generate electricity , this concept
has some plus points the draw back was costing. Obviously the generator 
would never be capable of meeting an individuals demand BUT it would 
reduce base load at power stations. ie the way to go was more efficient
housing and power usage. How many people have fast power on tellies 
(that are never 'turned off').

In article <BF3FBAAB.7309%stimpy1997uk@yahoo.com>,
Stimpy   wrote:

>On 3/9/05 20:18, "Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think we can all agree that climate change is a serious issue.
>>> 
>>> Whilst that might be a true statement, what is less certain is that any
>>> current climate change is the result of direct human intervention
>> 
>> We can only be sure that - to date - all the evidence points that way.
>
>The problem is identifying the hard evidence amongst the ill-informed
>tabloid journalism, panicky over-reactions, and special interest groups


I'd not consider the IPCC reports to be any of these, and I'd reckon
that there are good, accessible sources of information on the issue.
Houghton's[1] "Global warming: The complete briefing" (Cambridge Univ.
Press) isn't a bad place to start.


>trying to jump on the bandwagon of 'climate change' to justify their pet
>projects. 


Not met any of these, sorry. I have met a fair number of people who
reckon that it's time to cut back on their research programmes into
causes of global warming and actually start doing something about
the problem. though.

[1] Sir John Houghton, until fairly recently head of the Met. Office.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article ,
Terry Harper   wrote:

>On 3 Sep 2005 20:18:27 +0100, azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <BF3FB160.72EE%stimpy1997uk@yahoo.com>,
>>Stimpy   wrote:
>>>On 1/9/05 11:05, "Steve Pardoe"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> I think we can all agree that climate change is a serious issue.
>>>
>>>Whilst that might be a true statement, what is less certain is that any
>>>current climate change is the result of direct human intervention
>>
>>We can only be sure that - to date - all the evidence points that way.
>>And no, it _isn't_ solar variability this time. It has been in the past,
>>that and orbital fluctuations. It hasn't been so since 1975 at the
>>latest - or so the evidence indicates.
>
>I think that it would be truer to say that that is how the evidence
>has been interpreted by the climate change industry. I'm intrigued by


No, it's not. That's the evidence from the solar science community.
Looking out some of the recent papers by, say, Lockwood or Solanki
might get this point across. 
To re-iterate: For the period that we have good proxies for solar
activity and up until the 1970s there is good correlation between
longer-period solar activity (that is, on timescales of more than
the regular 11-year solar cycle) and climate. From the 1970s
solar activity levels off and then starts to fall away, but 
warming continues. We're not in the right phase of the Mihalovitch
cycle for warming, so it's not solar and it's not geometric.


>the latest predictions about CO2 absorption by the oceans increasing
>as the temperature of the water rises. I would have expected it to
>fall, and the balance between atmospheric CO2 and dissolved CO2 to
>shift towards the atmospheric.


Latest stuff I saw on this (reports of ocean measurements), IIRC
in Nature a few weeks back, suggested that the capacity of the ocean
to take up CO2 was getting limited, so yes, you'd see a greater
proportion of CO2 staying in the atmosphere.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

"Tony Polson"  wrote


> Of course it isn't difficult to find determinedly ignorant people who
> are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change thing.  Every
> Usenet newsgroup has at least one.


I for one don't doubt that climate change is happening, but would suggest 
that it has been an ongoing process throughout the history of the earth.

It is known that there have been at least two ice ages, and by the inference 
that the ice has retreated then global warming is not only a phenomena of 
the present but also one of the past.  The question is whether the present 
movement in climate is any different to what has happened before?

I have no idea of the answer, but this is an issue which never seems to be 
raised by those theorising about our climate.

John.

In message <dff109$epa$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>, at 15:40:15 
on Sun, 4 Sep 2005, John Turner <nospam@nospam.invalid> remarked:

>It is known that there have been at least two ice ages, and by the inference
>that the ice has retreated then global warming is not only a phenomena of
>the present but also one of the past.  The question is whether the present
>movement in climate is any different to what has happened before?
>
>I have no idea of the answer, but this is an issue which never seems to be
>raised by those theorising about our climate.


It's been raised whenever I've heard a proper debate on the issue.

Of course, what matters is not the fact that the world is heating up as 
part of a repeating long term historical cycle, but whether or not 
there's an additional, and possibly catastrophic, contribution from 
manmade CO2, ozone depletion etc.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:40:15 +0100, "John Turner"
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:


>> Of course it isn't difficult to find determinedly ignorant people who
>> are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change thing.  Every
>> Usenet newsgroup has at least one.
>
>I for one don't doubt that climate change is happening, but would suggest 
>that it has been an ongoing process throughout the history of the earth.


It has indeed, but there is no doubt[1] that the recent changes we
have been seeing are man-made.


>It is known that there have been at least two ice ages, and by the inference 
>that the ice has retreated then global warming is not only a phenomena of 
>the present but also one of the past.  The question is whether the present 
>movement in climate is any different to what has happened before?
>
>I have no idea of the answer, but this is an issue which never seems to be 
>raised by those theorising about our climate.


The great majority of the world's climatologists agree that the
ongoing rise in global temperatures is being directly caused by the
increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. I don't think you can seriously
suggest that it might not have occurred to them that there could be
other causes instead, and I'm sure that if you look into the issue you
will find that plenty of study has gone into them.

[1] Except that seeded by those with vested interests.

"John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:


>
>"Tony Polson"  wrote
>
>> Of course it isn't difficult to find determinedly ignorant people who
>> are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change thing.  Every
>> Usenet newsgroup has at least one.
>
>I for one don't doubt that climate change is happening, but would suggest 
>that it has been an ongoing process throughout the history of the earth.
>
>It is known that there have been at least two ice ages, and by the inference 
>that the ice has retreated then global warming is not only a phenomena of 
>the present but also one of the past.  The question is whether the present 
>movement in climate is any different to what has happened before?
>
>I have no idea of the answer, but this is an issue which never seems to be 
>raised by those theorising about our climate.



All I can do in reply is repeat what I said, which you quoted above.

--- David Jackson said...


> They are not worth all the [...] visual pollution they inflict on us.


A great deal less visual pollution than a traditional power station.
Face facts, no method of generating electricity is ever going to be
beautiful.  (After all, when was the last time you heard someone say
"It's as pretty as a power station.")  Wind farms are the _least ugly_
option.

solar.penguin@tiscali.co.uk wrote:

>
>A great deal less visual pollution than a traditional power station.
>Face facts, no method of generating electricity is ever going to be
>beautiful. 



Hydro-electric power stations can be beautiful, especially when
associated with arch dams.  Many of these landmark dams are tourist
attractions in their own right.

The message 
from solar.penguin@tiscali.co.uk contains these words:


> (After all, when was the last time you heard someone say
> "It's as pretty as a power station.")  


Dinorwig?  Ffestiniog isn't "pretty", but it's reasonably low-key.  Yes,
I know they're pumped storage stations, but even Fidlers Ferry PS looks
*interesting* especially if you see it at all times of day, and in all
seasons of the year, as I used to.  I've seen some very atmospheric
photos of Drax...

Wind farms are the _least ugly_

> option.


Drive eastwards out of the Longendale Valley, over Woodhead (see, back
on topic) and the skyline is occupied by those monstrous windmills on
every summit.  They just don't belong.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:50:28 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:


> "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Tony Polson"  wrote
>>
>>> Of course it isn't difficult to find determinedly ignorant people who
>>> are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change thing.  Every
>>> Usenet newsgroup has at least one.
>>
>> I for one don't doubt that climate change is happening, but would  
>> suggest
>> that it has been an ongoing process throughout the history of the earth.
>>
>> It is known that there have been at least two ice ages, and by the  
>> inference
>> that the ice has retreated then global warming is not only a phenomena  
>> of
>> the present but also one of the past.  The question is whether the  
>> present
>> movement in climate is any different to what has happened before?
>>
>> I have no idea of the answer, but this is an issue which never seems to  
>> be
>> raised by those theorising about our climate.
>
>
> All I can do in reply is repeat what I said, which you quoted above.


Whilst I agree with what you say Tony the problem as I see it with Global  
Warming is that there are too many plug-in issues,
examples being blaming the retreat of mountain glaciers on global warming  
when the experts on glaciers themselves say the glaciers have been in  
retreat since the mid 19th century and there is no evidence that global  
warming is to blame.

Likewise the break up of the antartic iceshelves whilst it is true that  
the area is decreasing the thickness of the ice shelf is actually  
increasing.

I think that more or less everyone agrees that the temperature/carbon  
dioxide are linked problem is i dont think that anyone can say that this  
is the result of burning of carbon fuels. If you dont know the root cause  
of the problem coming up with a solution is impossible.


Paul



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

In message , at 
09:24:28 on Sun, 4 Sep 2005, solar.penguin@tiscali.co.uk remarked:

>A great deal less visual pollution than a traditional power station.
>Face facts, no method of generating electricity is ever going to be
>beautiful.


I happen to think that cooling towers look very nice.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, John Turner wrote:


> The question is whether the present movement in climate is any 
> different to what has happened before?
> 
> I have no idea of the answer, but this is an issue which never seems 
> to be raised by those theorising about our climate.


Ahem!  You don't seem to have been listening.  In my experience, that 
question is practically *always* asked, and intensively discussed, 
when the topic of climate change is raised.

For quite a while (well, no time at all on a geological scale, but 
quite a while in human terms) that discussion came to no definite 
conclusion, but (this is not my field, so I'm only reporting what 
I've heard experts saying) increasingly the conclusions are hard to 
avoid, that human activities are driving significant changes.

In article ,
David Jackson   wrote:

>Wind farms are the _least ugly_
>> option.
>
>Drive eastwards out of the Longendale Valley, over Woodhead (see, back
>on topic) and the skyline is occupied by those monstrous windmills on
>every summit.  They just don't belong.


Absolutely beautiful in the low light of evening. I've stopped just
to gaze a couple of times while driving over from Stocksbridge.

Not as impressive as the BIIIIIIIIG turbines on the ridge opposite
my hotel last week, mind :)

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article <dff109$epa$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>,
John Turner <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Tony Polson"  wrote
>
>> Of course it isn't difficult to find determinedly ignorant people who
>> are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change thing.  Every
>> Usenet newsgroup has at least one.
>
>I for one don't doubt that climate change is happening, but would suggest 
>that it has been an ongoing process throughout the history of the earth.
>
>It is known that there have been at least two ice ages, and by the inference 
>that the ice has retreated then global warming is not only a phenomena of 
>the present but also one of the past.  The question is whether the present 
>movement in climate is any different to what has happened before?
>
>I have no idea of the answer, but this is an issue which never seems to be 
>raised by those theorising about our climate.


Go back and read the thread again.
Past climate changes - at least over the past few tens of thousands of
years - can be well-explained (well-reproduced by models, for the last few 
thousand years) in terms of Earth-Sun geometry and (especially for the
last few thousand years) solar activty (estimated by proxies such
as cosmic ray shower products in ice cores). In recent years this
has broken down. So the answer to your question is yes, this has
been looked into. The idea that "The question is whether the present

>movement in climate is any different to what has happened before?
>
>I have no idea of the answer, but this is an issue which never seems to 
be
>raised by those theorising about our climate."


is _at least_ six and a half years out of date (taking the first really 
convincing publication on the issue to be Lockwood, Stamper and Wild
in Nature, February 1999) - and there's been a //lot// published on
this issue since then.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article <op.swk8w9t4o3mvp0@paul-nn189bzj1r>,
paul Hutchinson  wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:50:28 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:
>
>> "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Tony Polson"  wrote
>>>
>>>> Of course it isn't difficult to find determinedly ignorant people who
>>>> are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change thing.  Every
>>>> Usenet newsgroup has at least one.
>>>
>>> I for one don't doubt that climate change is happening, but would  
>>> suggest
>>> that it has been an ongoing process throughout the history of the earth.
>>>
>>
>> All I can do in reply is repeat what I said, which you quoted above.
>
>Whilst I agree with what you say Tony the problem as I see it with Global  
>Warming is that there are too many plug-in issues,
>examples being blaming the retreat of mountain glaciers on global warming  
>when the experts on glaciers themselves say the glaciers have been in  
>retreat since the mid 19th century and there is no evidence that global  
>warming is to blame.


The climate was warming through the second half of the 19th century
as the Sun increased in activity from the end of the little minimum
in activity which centred on the 1840s. You'd expect glacier retreat as
a result. The salient point, however, is that retreat has continued
(indeed accelerated) after long-period solar activity stabilised or
started to decline from the 1970s.


>Likewise the break up of the antartic iceshelves whilst it is true that  
>the area is decreasing the thickness of the ice shelf is actually  
>increasing.


Lots of noise in that particular signal, I'm told - it's far from
certain that thickness is increasing except very locally. I can 
always ask some of the Antarctic survey people next time I see 
any of them, though.


>I think that more or less everyone agrees that the temperature/carbon  
>dioxide are linked problem is i dont think that anyone can say that this  
>is the result of burning of carbon fuels. If you dont know the root cause  
>of the problem coming up with a solution is impossible.


It's not (1) solar activity or (2) Sun-Earth geometry, which have been
the big drivers in the past. CO2 (etc.) emissions are the obvious "new"
factor. A lot of other possibilities have been looked into and AFAIK
(and I do make it my business to try and keep up to date on this stuff)
the overwhelming view of those trying to understand climate change
is that carbon release from human activities is the dominant cause
of the present climate change event. The debate is about how much
damage is now inevitable and how much could be headed off.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 19:23:36 +0100, Andrew Robert Breen   
wrote:


> In article <op.swk8w9t4o3mvp0@paul-nn189bzj1r>,
> paul Hutchinson  wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:50:28 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:
>>
>>> "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tony Polson"  wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Of course it isn't difficult to find determinedly ignorant people who
>>>>> are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change thing.  Every
>>>>> Usenet newsgroup has at least one.
>>>>
>>>> I for one don't doubt that climate change is happening, but would
>>>> suggest
>>>> that it has been an ongoing process throughout the history of the  
>>>> earth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All I can do in reply is repeat what I said, which you quoted above.
>>
>> Whilst I agree with what you say Tony the problem as I see it with  
>> Global
>> Warming is that there are too many plug-in issues,
>> examples being blaming the retreat of mountain glaciers on global  
>> warming
>> when the experts on glaciers themselves say the glaciers have been in
>> retreat since the mid 19th century and there is no evidence that global
>> warming is to blame.
>
> The climate was warming through the second half of the 19th century
> as the Sun increased in activity from the end of the little minimum
> in activity which centred on the 1840s. You'd expect glacier retreat as
> a result. The salient point, however, is that retreat has continued
> (indeed accelerated) after long-period solar activity stabilised or
> started to decline from the 1970s.
>
>> Likewise the break up of the antartic iceshelves whilst it is true that
>> the area is decreasing the thickness of the ice shelf is actually
>> increasing.
>
> Lots of noise in that particular signal, I'm told - it's far from
> certain that thickness is increasing except very locally. I can
> always ask some of the Antarctic survey people next time I see
> any of them, though.
>
>> I think that more or less everyone agrees that the temperature/carbon
>> dioxide are linked problem is i dont think that anyone can say that this
>> is the result of burning of carbon fuels. If you dont know the root  
>> cause
>> of the problem coming up with a solution is impossible.
>
> It's not (1) solar activity or (2) Sun-Earth geometry, which have been
> the big drivers in the past. CO2 (etc.) emissions are the obvious "new"
> factor. A lot of other possibilities have been looked into and AFAIK
> (and I do make it my business to try and keep up to date on this stuff)
> the overwhelming view of those trying to understand climate change
> is that carbon release from human activities is the dominant cause
> of the present climate change event. The debate is about how much
> damage is now inevitable and how much could be headed off.
>

Andy,
Have you read the article in the latest edition of New Scientist "Global  
Change the flaw in the thaw"? What did you think of it?

Paul

"paul Hutchinson"  wrote:


>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:50:28 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:
>
>> "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Tony Polson"  wrote
>>>
>>>> Of course it isn't difficult to find determinedly ignorant people who
>>>> are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change thing.  Every
>>>> Usenet newsgroup has at least one.
>>>
>>> I for one don't doubt that climate change is happening, but would  
>>> suggest
>>> that it has been an ongoing process throughout the history of the earth.
>>>
>>> It is known that there have been at least two ice ages, and by the  
>>> inference
>>> that the ice has retreated then global warming is not only a phenomena  
>>> of
>>> the present but also one of the past.  The question is whether the  
>>> present
>>> movement in climate is any different to what has happened before?
>>>
>>> I have no idea of the answer, but this is an issue which never seems to  
>>> be
>>> raised by those theorising about our climate.
>>
>>
>> All I can do in reply is repeat what I said, which you quoted above.
>
>Whilst I agree with what you say Tony the problem as I see it with Global  
>Warming is that there are too many plug-in issues,
>examples being blaming the retreat of mountain glaciers on global warming  
>when the experts on glaciers themselves say the glaciers have been in  
>retreat since the mid 19th century and there is no evidence that global  
>warming is to blame.
>
>Likewise the break up of the antartic iceshelves whilst it is true that  
>the area is decreasing the thickness of the ice shelf is actually  
>increasing.
>
>I think that more or less everyone agrees that the temperature/carbon  
>dioxide are linked problem is i dont think that anyone can say that this  
>is the result of burning of carbon fuels. If you dont know the root cause  
>of the problem coming up with a solution is impossible.



I would like to know what specialist qualifications you have to back
up such dogmatic statements.

Otherwise, you are just another one of the "determinedly ignorant
people who are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change
thing", just like smokers who don't believe that smoking contributes
to a greater risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke, because Uncle
George smoked 40 Woodbines a day and lived until the age of 104.

"Alan J. Flavell"  wrote:


>On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, John Turner wrote:
>
>> The question is whether the present movement in climate is any 
>> different to what has happened before?
>> 
>> I have no idea of the answer, but this is an issue which never seems 
>> to be raised by those theorising about our climate.
>
>Ahem!  You don't seem to have been listening.



Those who pontificate the loudest are usually the same people who made
the least effort to discover the facts.  Unless they are personally
spoon fed with the facts, they just refuse to believe them.  And even
if they *are* personally spoon fed with the facts, they often *still*
refuse to believe them.  

Unfortunately, one of their number also happens to be the current
President of the United States of America.  :-(

In message , David Jackson 
 writes

>The message <df6g6u$flv$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>
>from "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> contains these words:
>
>> If they don't work why would the promoters be willing to spend millions on
>> such a development?
>
>The local view of the "development" (I'm just as affected as Steve, BTW)
>is "money talks".  The landowner gets payments of rent for the use of
>the land, the developer gets government and EU grants, and then payment
>for any electricity the windmills actually manage to produce.


At an extortionate rate, well over 24p/unit by now.

Mike
-- 
M.J.Powell

paul Hutchinson wrote:


> Whilst I agree with what you say Tony the problem as I see it with 
> Global  Warming is that there are too many plug-in issues,


Shirley deforestation is also a potential cause, but also (chosing my 
words carefully !) Indonesian Peat Burning is reported by some sources 
to contribute an estimated seventh of "greenhouse gasses".

I'm cynical enough to believe that not much will be done, other than to 
attack easy targets such as the motorist. Of course, if Blair thought 
that approach would cost votes, it wouldn't happen, which appears to be 
Bush's attitute in the States.

I wouldn't mind so much if vehicle excise and fuel tax were "ring 
fenced" for improvements to public transport [1]. It's chicken-and-egg 
for me, I'd be happy to use a reliable bus or train service (as I'm old 
and grumpy and hate driving), but I have no realistic choice for getting 
to work.

I did have a bizzare brainwave in the pub the other night... get all the 
Politicians and Councillors out of their chauffeur driven cars and force 
them to use public transport - which would soon improve !

Whilst I don't agree with some of Ken Livingstone's policies, he is the 
only "politician" I associate with using public transport.

[1] but as has been noted before, no government will do this; if 
different revenues went to different services, there'd be no money for 
unpopular causes such as invasions (oops, I mean peace-keeping wars) and 
MP's pensions :-)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Tony   Polson wrote:


> And even if they *are* personally spoon fed with the facts, they 
> often *still* refuse to believe them.
> 
> Unfortunately, one of their number also happens to be the current
> President of the United States of America.  :-(


Yeah, well *he* seems to have taken his time grasping what had 
happened to New Orleans, long after our own meeja was ringing the 
alarm bells.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 19:36:20 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:


> "paul Hutchinson"  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:50:28 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:
>>
>>> "John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tony Polson"  wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Of course it isn't difficult to find determinedly ignorant people who
>>>>> are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change thing.  Every
>>>>> Usenet newsgroup has at least one.
>>>>
>>>> I for one don't doubt that climate change is happening, but would
>>>> suggest
>>>> that it has been an ongoing process throughout the history of the  
>>>> earth.
>>>>
>>>> It is known that there have been at least two ice ages, and by the
>>>> inference
>>>> that the ice has retreated then global warming is not only a phenomena
>>>> of
>>>> the present but also one of the past.  The question is whether the
>>>> present
>>>> movement in climate is any different to what has happened before?
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea of the answer, but this is an issue which never seems  
>>>> to
>>>> be
>>>> raised by those theorising about our climate.
>>>
>>>
>>> All I can do in reply is repeat what I said, which you quoted above.
>>
>> Whilst I agree with what you say Tony the problem as I see it with  
>> Global
>> Warming is that there are too many plug-in issues,
>> examples being blaming the retreat of mountain glaciers on global  
>> warming
>> when the experts on glaciers themselves say the glaciers have been in
>> retreat since the mid 19th century and there is no evidence that global
>> warming is to blame.
>>
>> Likewise the break up of the antartic iceshelves whilst it is true that
>> the area is decreasing the thickness of the ice shelf is actually
>> increasing.
>>
>> I think that more or less everyone agrees that the temperature/carbon
>> dioxide are linked problem is i dont think that anyone can say that this
>> is the result of burning of carbon fuels. If you dont know the root  
>> cause
>> of the problem coming up with a solution is impossible.
>
>
> I would like to know what specialist qualifications you have to back
> up such dogmatic statements.
>
> Otherwise, you are just another one of the "determinedly ignorant
> people who are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change
> thing", just like smokers who don't believe that smoking contributes
> to a greater risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke, because Uncle
> George smoked 40 Woodbines a day and lived until the age of 104.


Obsolutely none (this is after all alledgedly a newsgroup for railway  
enthusiasts), I have to go on specialist advice which is why I'm confused  
because the specialist advice is itself diverse. Personally I have  
absolutely no doubt that global warming is occuring evidenced in the  
measurable increase in Temperature and carbon Dioxide. However I do have  
trouble linking this increase solely to the consumption of fossil fuels  
and it appears to me that the evidence of this is at least circumstancial.

You will notice I have asked elsewhere in this thread for Andy Breens  
opinion on an article in New Scientist that is because I value Andys  
obvious well qualified views.

Paul



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 18:00:27 +0100, David Jackson wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> The message 
> from solar.penguin@tiscali.co.uk contains these words:
> 
[...] 
> Wind farms are the _least ugly_ option.
> 
> Drive eastwards out of the Longendale Valley, over Woodhead (see, back
> on topic) and the skyline is occupied by those monstrous windmills on
> every summit.  They just don't belong.


Sit in the vineyard (I kid ye not) of the Mediaeval Bishop's Palace in
Lincoln and look west. There's this concrete splodge in the distance
that's otherwise known as Torksey power station and it don't half ruin
the panoramic view.

Windmills, be they old-fashioned wooden things or the modern variety,
would be significantly better on the skyline than that monstrosity.


However, I suspect that this is a topic with no middle ground: you
either like 'em or you detest 'em, and the two sides will never meet.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote in message 
news:dfeupq$b2na$1@central.aber.ac.uk...

> In article <BF3FBAAB.7309%stimpy1997uk@yahoo.com>,
> Stimpy   wrote:
>>On 3/9/05 20:18, "Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we can all agree that climate change is a serious issue.
>>>>
>>>> Whilst that might be a true statement, what is less certain is that any
>>>> current climate change is the result of direct human intervention
>>>
>>> We can only be sure that - to date - all the evidence points that way.
>>
>>The problem is identifying the hard evidence amongst the ill-informed
>>tabloid journalism, panicky over-reactions, and special interest groups
>
> I'd not consider the IPCC reports to be any of these, and I'd reckon
> that there are good, accessible sources of information on the issue.
> Houghton's[1] "Global warming: The complete briefing" (Cambridge Univ.
> Press) isn't a bad place to start.
>
>>trying to jump on the bandwagon of 'climate change' to justify their pet
>>projects.
>
> Not met any of these, sorry. I have met a fair number of people who
> reckon that it's time to cut back on their research programmes into
> causes of global warming and actually start doing something about
> the problem. though.
>
> [1] Sir John Houghton, until fairly recently head of the Met. Office.
>


Oddly enough, just finished reading a book based around global warming.

By Michael Crichtin (author of the orgininal Jurasic Park book) and called 
'State of Fear'. Like JP, it appears to be a fiction based around fact style 
and (to summarise) that global warming is nothing new and part of the 
'overall' climatic cycle of the Earth. It's an interesting read (I make no 
claims as to the accuracy of the science), with lots of references - at 
times its like reading a text book with all the footnote references!

I'll not spoil the plot in case anyone else is reading atm, but thought it 
was pretty good if a little 'off beat'.

Anyways enough of this, join me next week when I review ......Sorry, got 
carried away there ;-)

Cheers
Jeff.

The message 
from Ross  contains these words:


> However, I suspect that this is a topic with no middle ground: you
> either like 'em or you detest 'em, and the two sides will never meet.


Like 'em or loathe 'em, you can't ignore 'em!

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

"paul Hutchinson"  wrote:

>
>Obsolutely none



Thonk you.  Thot is all I need to know.

;-)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:14:19 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:


> "paul Hutchinson"  wrote:
>>
>> Obsolutely none
>
>
> Thonk you.  Thot is all I need to know.
>
> ;-)


Prehaps you would like to return the courtesy and provide us with your  
qualifications?

Paul



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Alan J. Flavell"  wrote:


>On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Tony   Polson wrote:
>
>> And even if they *are* personally spoon fed with the facts, they 
>> often *still* refuse to believe them.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, one of their number also happens to be the current
>> President of the United States of America.  :-(
>
>Yeah, well *he* seems to have taken his time grasping what had 
>happened to New Orleans, long after our own meeja was ringing the 
>alarm bells.



I think the problem was that many people breathed a sigh of relief as
Katrina passed some miles to the east of New Orleans.  The wind and
rain were therefore much less than the worst that could have been
expected.  The problem was that Katrina's storm surge gradually built
up while the hurricane moved towards land at only 15 miles per hour.  

Initially, people congratulated themselves that New Orleans had
escaped the sort of devastation that hit Gulfport and Biloxi, where
huge damage was caused to buildings by the winds - 30 people were
killed in one apartment block that collapsed.

After the hurricane had passed, taking the worst of the wind and rain
with it, the storm surge combined with the high meaning that the level
of the sea crept up almost by stealth and the flood defences failed,
taking New Orleans by surprise.  

This is the sort of surge for which we are well prepared in the UK,
thanks to the Storm Tide Warning Service which has been based at the
Met Office following the North Sea storm surge disaster of 1953.  

Unfortunately, New Orleans was far less well prepared because a surge
of this extreme magnitude could not have been predicted by
conventional means.  As with most major disasters a combination of
factors was to blame:  

As the tropical storm Katrina (at that time Katrina was not even a
hurricane, but it was bordering on a Class 1) passed across into the
Gulf, it gained energy at an unprecedented rate because the sea
temperature was at record levels.  That's how it became a Category 5,
with near-record low atmospheric pressure in the eye.  

As the hurricane approached New Orleans it slowed down to an unusually
slow pace, allowing Katrina far greater time to develop a storm surge
than would normally have been expected.

Normally it is the hurricane's winds and (potentially) billions of
tons of rain that cause the damage.  This happened in Gulfport and
Biloxi.  However, in New Orleans, it was the low atmospheric pressure
causing the level of the sea to rise gradually - a storm surge.  

Katrina's slow advance on the coast gave plenty of time for the surge
to develop, and it reached record heights.  The unfortunate
coincidence with the time of high tide made the water level even
higher.

For these reasons I am not surprised that the authorities in New
Orleans were caught napping.  They genuinely thought they had escaped
the hurricane.  In a way they did, because the wind and rain didn't
get them.  But the storm surge did.  And how.

--

Ob. uk.r content: I spent an hour in New Orleans' Amtrak Station in
2000 as a passenger on the Amtrak "Sunset Limited" service from
Orlando, Florida to Los Angeles, California, passing through Gulfport
on the way.  The train consisted of double deck Superliner passenger,
sleeping and dining cars hauled by a General Electric "Genesis"
locomotive.

paul Hutchinson wrote:

>Prehaps


<Tap Tap Tappity Tap>
DICT "prehaps" [enter]

>...
Searching...
>...

No entry found for prehaps.

Did you mean "priapus"?

Search complete (0.06 seconds)

<Tap Tap Tappity Tap>
DICT "priapus"


>...

3 entries found for priapus:
priapus  n.

1. Priapus /Greek & Roman Mythology./ The god of procreation, guardian
of gardens and vineyards, and personification of the erect phallus.
2. An image of this god, often used as a scarecrow in ancient gardens.
3. A representation of a phallus.

Search complete (0.11 seconds)


Hmmm...


Neil Sunderland
-- 
Braunton, Devon
Please observe the Reply-To address.

NP: Kings Of Leon - MEDLEY: Holy Roller Novocaine/Talihina Sky (from the album 'Youth and Young Manhood')

"paul Hutchinson"  wrote:


>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:14:19 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:
>
>> "paul Hutchinson"  wrote:
>>>
>>> Obsolutely none
>>
>>
>> Thonk you.  Thot is all I need to know.
>>
>> ;-)
>
>Prehaps you would like to return the courtesy and provide us with your  
>qualifications?



Perhaps not.  I'm not a fan of flogging dead horses.

Tony Polson wrote:


> "paul Hutchinson"  wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:14:19 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"paul Hutchinson"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Obsolutely none
>>>
>>>
>>>Thonk you.  Thot is all I need to know.
>>>
>>>;-)
>>
>>Prehaps you would like to return the courtesy and provide us with your  
>>qualifications?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not.  I'm not a fan of flogging dead horses.  
> 


Equinecroflagophillia ?

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:59:32 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:


> "paul Hutchinson"  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:14:19 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:
>>
>>> "paul Hutchinson"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Obsolutely none
>>>
>>>
>>> Thonk you.  Thot is all I need to know.
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Prehaps you would like to return the courtesy and provide us with your
>> qualifications?
>
>
> Perhaps not.  I'm not a fan of flogging dead horses.


Yes, thats what I thought.

Paul



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 18:00:27 +0100, David Jackson
 wrote:


>Drive eastwards out of the Longendale Valley, over Woodhead (see, back
>on topic) and the skyline is occupied by those monstrous windmills on
>every summit.  They just don't belong.


A matter of opinion.  I personally believe they do "belong".

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

matt  wrote:


>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> "paul Hutchinson"  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:14:19 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"paul Hutchinson"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Obsolutely none
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thonk you.  Thot is all I need to know.
>>>>
>>>>;-)
>>>
>>>Prehaps you would like to return the courtesy and provide us with your  
>>>qualifications?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Perhaps not.  I'm not a fan of flogging dead horses.  
>> 
>
>Equinecroflagophillia ?



Keeping it on the farm, perhaps a more apt phrase would have been: 

"Pearls before swine".

On 4/9/05 19:36, "Tony   Polson"  wrote:

>
>> 
>> Whilst I agree with what you say Tony the problem as I see it with Global
>> Warming is that there are too many plug-in issues,
>> examples being blaming the retreat of mountain glaciers on global warming
>> when the experts on glaciers themselves say the glaciers have been in
>> retreat since the mid 19th century and there is no evidence that global
>> warming is to blame.
>> 
>> Likewise the break up of the antartic iceshelves whilst it is true that
>> the area is decreasing the thickness of the ice shelf is actually
>> increasing.
>> 
>> I think that more or less everyone agrees that the temperature/carbon
>> dioxide are linked problem is i dont think that anyone can say that this
>> is the result of burning of carbon fuels. If you dont know the root cause
>> of the problem coming up with a solution is impossible.
> 
> I would like to know what specialist qualifications you have to back
> up such dogmatic statements.
> 
> Otherwise, you are just another one of the "determinedly ignorant
> people who are absolutely in denial about the whole climate change
> thing", just like smokers who don't believe that smoking contributes
> to a greater risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke, because Uncle
> George smoked 40 Woodbines a day and lived until the age of 104.


Just out of genuine interest Tony, what are your specialist qualifications?

You seem to have a fairly dogmatic attachment to a position yourself so I'm
presuming you're making your statements from a basis of having the same
specialist qualifications you're asking from those with an opposing view to
yours.

Stimpy  wrote:

>
>Just out of genuine interest Tony, what are your specialist qualifications?



Until the late 1990s I managed a  multi-million research programme
for a Government department aimed at flood and coastal defence,
including a substantial element related to climate change, including
training professional engineers in how to manage risks associated with
climate change.  I am now an independent consultant.  I am a Chartered
Civil Engineer with a BEng and MSc in Civil Engineering and 25 years'
experience in design, estimating and construction of projects in flood
and coastal defence, ports and harbours, roads, railways and tunnels.

In message , at 21:44:16 on 
Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Tony Polson  remarked:

>For these reasons I am not surprised that the authorities in New
>Orleans were caught napping.  They genuinely thought they had escaped
>the hurricane.  In a way they did, because the wind and rain didn't
>get them.  But the storm surge did.


Yes, and that's a very good explanation of why the city flooded.

But it doesn't explain why it took them several days to do react, once 
it was clear the city *had* flooded; and why the rescue effort is still 
incomplete a week later (the Convention Centre wasn't evacuated until 
mid-Sunday).
-- 
Roland Perry

In message 
          Ian Harding  wrote:


> Bevan Price wrote:
[snip]
> > 
> > So why not put some in the River Thames, eg outside Parliament ? Also new
> > skyscrapers could be designed to have a wind turbine on their roof.
> > 


London is not that good a place for wind energy on a big scale, being in a
bowl, you'd be better off putting them along the north amd south downs.


> 
> Wind turbines on a tower block:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4648371.stm>
> 
> Domestic wind turbines:
> <http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>
> 


Sounds lethal, the output is sent to a 3 pin PLUG?

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In article <op.swlco3zeo3mvp0@paul-nn189bzj1r>,
paul Hutchinson  wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 19:23:36 +0100, Andrew Robert Breen   
>>
>Andy,
>Have you read the article in the latest edition of New Scientist "Global  
>Change the flaw in the thaw"? What did you think of it?


Not seen it (yet). Shall collect it from upstairs later today & will
report back..

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article <431b5238$0$38037$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
Jeff McGhie  wrote:

>
>"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote in message 
>news:dfeupq$b2na$1@central.aber.ac.uk...
>>
>> I'd not consider the IPCC reports to be any of these, and I'd reckon
>> that there are good, accessible sources of information on the issue.
>> Houghton's[1] "Global warming: The complete briefing" (Cambridge Univ.
>> Press) isn't a bad place to start.

>> [1] Sir John Houghton, until fairly recently head of the Met. Office.

>Oddly enough, just finished reading a book based around global warming.
>
>By Michael Crichtin (author of the orgininal Jurasic Park book) and called 
>'State of Fear'. Like JP, it appears to be a fiction based around fact style 
>and (to summarise) that global warming is nothing new and part of the 
>'overall' climatic cycle of the Earth. It's an interesting read (I make no 
>claims as to the accuracy of the science), with lots of references - at 
>times its like reading a text book with all the footnote references!


The difference between Crichton's effusions and the IPCC report (or
Houghton's book) is that Crichton is writing fiction. I'm reliably
informed that the science is - to put it mildly - significantly 
misrepresented.

The overwhelming scientific consensus - the "evidence-based community",
if you'd like the USian term - is that (a) climate change has occured
in the past but (b) the current changes in climate do not appear to 
be driven by the same variations in solar input which controlled
past changes. Or that's what I'm getting from the literature
and at conferences.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Graeme Wall wrote:

> In message 
>           Ian Harding  wrote:

>>Domestic wind turbines:
>><http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>
>>
> 
> Sounds lethal, the output is sent to a 3 pin PLUG?


1 kW @ 240 V -> 4.2 A

Seems fine to me, given that I can draw 13 A from such a plug (nominally).

Robin

In message <dfhl58$aiu$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, at 15:36:24 on Mon, 5 
Sep 2005, R.C. Payne  remarked:

>>>Domestic wind turbines:
>>><http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>
>>>
>>  Sounds lethal, the output is sent to a 3 pin PLUG?
>
>1 kW @ 240 V -> 4.2 A
>
>Seems fine to me, given that I can draw 13 A from such a plug (nominally).


Are you sure he's not worried about the power appearing on the 
unshielded male pins of a plug, not the female ones in a socket?
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:36:24 +0100, "R.C. Payne" 
wrote:


>Graeme Wall wrote:
>> In message 
>>           Ian Harding  wrote:
>
>>>Domestic wind turbines:
>>><http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>
>>>
>> 
>> Sounds lethal, the output is sent to a 3 pin PLUG?
>
>1 kW @ 240 V -> 4.2 A
>
>Seems fine to me, given that I can draw 13 A from such a plug (nominally).
>

As it only takes tens of milliamps to kill someone, you should be well
past the black, burnt and smoking stage by now.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

In message <dfhl58$aiu$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
          "R.C. Payne"  wrote:


> Graeme Wall wrote:
> > In message 
> >           Ian Harding  wrote:
> 
> >>Domestic wind turbines:
> >><http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>
> >>
> > 
> > Sounds lethal, the output is sent to a 3 pin PLUG?
> 
> 1 kW @ 240 V -> 4.2 A
> 
> Seems fine to me, given that I can draw 13 A from such a plug (nominally).
> 


You are happy to put your fingers across the pins?  Remember the output from
the gennie is being sent _to_ a plug that you insert in a 13amp socket to get
it into your mains wiring.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

The message 
from Charles Ellson  contains these words:


> As it only takes tens of milliamps to kill someone, you should be well
> past the black, burnt and smoking stage by now.


Nah!  The wind dropped...       <g>

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 11:13:14 +0100, Graeme Wall
 wrote:


>In message 
>          Ian Harding  wrote:
<snip>
>> Wind turbines on a tower block:
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4648371.stm>
>> 
>> Domestic wind turbines:
>> <http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>
>> 
>
>Sounds lethal, the output is sent to a 3 pin PLUG?

According to:-
<http://www.windsave.com/FAQ_technical.htm#17>
=====
How safe is the system if the plug is pulled out of the socket?

There are two aspects here to be aware of. Please note that the
applicable regulations demand that our system is safe in all modes of
use, or indeed, 'non-use'. We typically hard wire into a fused spur,
so there is no inadvertent disconnection available in normal use. When
we do use a 'plug in ' technique , the socket for the 13A plug is also
made safe from 'inadvertent unplugging' by means of a safety cover,
which requires a tool (and a 'responsible person') to remove it.
However, also please note that the standards do also require the
system to go 'dead and safe' within 0.4 seconds maximum. We comply
with this, but the above two methods also work to preclude this aspect
of any part 'exposed' remaining live for personal contact.
=====
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

matt wrote:

>
> I wouldn't mind so much if vehicle excise and fuel tax were "ring
> fenced" for improvements to public transport [1].

snip

>
> [1] but as has been noted before, no government will do this;


snip

In fact, the Swiss government does exactly that! I assume you were
referring to English Governments?


-- 
Regards

Mike

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, R.C. Payne wrote:


> Graeme Wall wrote:
>
> > Sounds lethal, the output is sent to a 3 pin PLUG?
> 
> 1 kW @ 240 V -> 4.2 A
> 
> Seems fine to me, given that I can draw 13 A from such a plug (nominally).


I suspect the hon. Usenaut would prefer the power to be 
delivered to a *socket*.

"Mike Roebuck"  wrote:


>
>matt wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't mind so much if vehicle excise and fuel tax were "ring
>> fenced" for improvements to public transport [1].
>
>snip
>
>>
>> [1] but as has been noted before, no government will do this;
>
>snip
>
>In fact, the Swiss government does exactly that! I assume you were
>referring to English Governments?



It is done in Norway too.  Hypothecation is something that the
Treasury detests, because it reduces or removes Treasury control over
an area of public expenditure.

In message 
          Charles Ellson  wrote:


> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 11:13:14 +0100, Graeme Wall
>  wrote:
> 
> >In message 
> >          Ian Harding  wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Wind turbines on a tower block:
> >> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4648371.stm>
> >> 
> >> Domestic wind turbines:
> >> <http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>
> >> 
> >
> >Sounds lethal, the output is sent to a 3 pin PLUG?
> According to:-
> <http://www.windsave.com/FAQ_technical.htm#17>
> =====
> How safe is the system if the plug is pulled out of the socket?
> 
> There are two aspects here to be aware of. Please note that the
> applicable regulations demand that our system is safe in all modes of
> use, or indeed, 'non-use'. We typically hard wire into a fused spur,
> so there is no inadvertent disconnection available in normal use. When
> we do use a 'plug in ' technique , the socket for the 13A plug is also
> made safe from 'inadvertent unplugging' by means of a safety cover,
> which requires a tool (and a 'responsible person') to remove it.
> However, also please note that the standards do also require the
> system to go 'dead and safe' within 0.4 seconds maximum. We comply
> with this, but the above two methods also work to preclude this aspect
> of any part 'exposed' remaining live for personal contact.
> =====


I assumed there had to be some safety gizmo, but the website doesn't mention
it.  I can just see some idiot DIYer wiring one up to a 13 amp plug.


-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On 5 Sep 2005 08:37:11 -0700, "Mike Roebuck" 
wrote:


>In fact, the Swiss government does exactly that! I assume you were
>referring to English Governments?


I find "ring fencing" a bit odd as a concept, because surely the
amount of "non ring-fenced" funds allocated to that target will simply
be correspondingly reduced?

A commitment to a specific level of spending would be preferable and
less political.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Mike Roebuck wrote:

> matt wrote:
> 
>>I wouldn't mind so much if vehicle excise and fuel tax were "ring
>>fenced" for improvements to public transport [1].
> 
> 
> snip
> 
> 
>>[1] but as has been noted before, no government will do this;
> 
> 
> snip
> 
> In fact, the Swiss government does exactly that! I assume you were
> referring to English Governments?
> 


Interesting !  That bit of info (and Norway - thanks Tony) is definitely 
getting worked into the conversation next time I get into that argument 
in the pub :-)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:59:24 +0100, Graeme Wall
 wrote:


>In message 
>          Charles Ellson  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 11:13:14 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >In message 
>> >          Ian Harding  wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >> Wind turbines on a tower block:
>> >> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4648371.stm>
>> >> 
>> >> Domestic wind turbines:
>> >> <http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3068>
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Sounds lethal, the output is sent to a 3 pin PLUG?
>> According to:-
>> <http://www.windsave.com/FAQ_technical.htm#17>
>> =====
>> How safe is the system if the plug is pulled out of the socket?
>> 
<snip>
>I assumed there had to be some safety gizmo, but the website doesn't mention
>it.  I can just see some idiot DIYer wiring one up to a 13 amp plug.


Only if you get there quick, the chances of them doing a repeat
performance might be self-limiting. Although if a certain retired BT
Technical Officer who used to work in NW London (umpteen amp fuse/bit
of wire, battery jack, many yards of 0.5mm jumper wire, short circuit
at far end, MDF on fire, "everyone" knows who I mean) is still around
then I wouldn't be too sure. 
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

In article ,
Tony   Polson   wrote:

>"Mike Roebuck"  wrote:
>>
>>matt wrote:
>>>
>>> I wouldn't mind so much if vehicle excise and fuel tax were "ring
>>> fenced" for improvements to public transport [1].
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>
>>> [1] but as has been noted before, no government will do this;
>>
>>snip
>>
>>In fact, the Swiss government does exactly that! I assume you were
>>referring to English Governments?
>
>
>It is done in Norway too.  Hypothecation is something that the
>Treasury detests, because it reduces or removes Treasury control over
>an area of public expenditure.


Communes (local authorities) in .no also get to vary petrol taxation
to pay for local transport improvements. Tromsoe used that revenue
to convert cold-war era bunkers into underground parking space in
the city centre and to underwrite bus services. And (ob uk.r) if
the Tromsbanen had been built (Narvik-Tromsoe, planned from the
80s onwards, still a paper project only) some of the funding would
have been raised in the same way.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

>
>Communes (local authorities) in .no also get to vary petrol taxation
>to pay for local transport improvements. Tromsoe used that revenue
>to convert cold-war era bunkers into underground parking space in
>the city centre and to underwrite bus services. And (ob uk.r) if
>the Tromsbanen had been built (Narvik-Tromsoe, planned from the
>80s onwards, still a paper project only) some of the funding would
>have been raised in the same way.



As with so many ideas from Nordic countries, it makes perfect sense.

In message 
          Charles Ellson  wrote:


> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:59:24 +0100, Graeme Wall
>  wrote:
> 
> >In message 
> >          Charles Ellson  wrote:
> >
[snip]
> >> 
> <snip>
> >I assumed there had to be some safety gizmo, but the website doesn't mention
> >it.  I can just see some idiot DIYer wiring one up to a 13 amp plug.
> 
> Only if you get there quick, the chances of them doing a repeat
> performance might be self-limiting. 


Sod's law being what it is, it wouldn't be the idiot who got killed.


> Although if a certain retired BT Technical Officer who used to work in NW
> London (umpteen amp fuse/bit of wire, battery jack, many yards of 0.5mm
> jumper wire, short circuit at far end, MDF on fire, "everyone" knows who I
> mean) is still around then I wouldn't be too sure. 


Every industry has one.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

matt wrote:

> Mike Roebuck wrote:
> > matt wrote:
> >
> >>I wouldn't mind so much if vehicle excise and fuel tax were "ring
> >>fenced" for improvements to public transport [1].
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
> >
> >>[1] but as has been noted before, no government will do this;
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
> > In fact, the Swiss government does exactly that! I assume you were
> > referring to English Governments?
> >
>
> Interesting !  That bit of info (and Norway - thanks Tony) is definitely
> getting worked into the conversation next time I get into that argument
> in the pub :-)


Well, if you want the exact version, it is money from HGV taxation
which is invested in the Swiss rail network. This also explains why
Switzerland has some of the lowest track access charges in Europe.


-- 
Regards

Mike

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:46:42 +0100 someone who may be Ross
 wrote this:-


>Sit in the vineyard (I kid ye not) of the Mediaeval Bishop's Palace in
>Lincoln and look west. There's this concrete splodge in the distance
>that's otherwise known as Torksey power station and it don't half ruin
>the panoramic view.
>
>Windmills, be they old-fashioned wooden things or the modern variety,
>would be significantly better on the skyline than that monstrosity.


And http://www.glendell.co.uk/industry_env_page/1-030.html is an
excellent observation that Ross' comment is true.


>However, I suspect that this is a topic with no middle ground: you
>either like 'em or you detest 'em, and the two sides will never meet.


Generally the public like 'em, there are many references for this
the latest being http://www.bwea.com/media/news/populus_nuclear.html
which is not dissimilar to others.

Those who detest 'em make a noise out of all proportion to their
numbers.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> Those who detest 'em make a noise out of all proportion to their
> numbers.


Strangely enough, it seems to be the other way round from where I'm sitting.

When all the windmills are working flat out (although "flat" is hardly
the right adjective), how are you proposing to supply the other 90 - 95%
of the nation's electricity needs?

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 00:06:32 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>> Those who detest 'em make a noise out of all proportion to their
>> numbers.
>
>Strangely enough, it seems to be the other way round from where I'm sitting.


Some surveys are outlined in the "Public Opinion" sheet linked from
http://www.bwea.com/energy/briefing-sheets.html from which the
following is taken:

=======================================================================

The UK has a long history of wind energy  and as long a history in
cataloguing public opinion of wind farms. The first surveys in the
UK were carried out before the first commercial wind farm started
operations, at Delabole in Cornwall in 1991.

With over 13 years experience and more than 50 separate surveys,
the results can be taken as conclusive, showing as they do a
consistently high level of support for the development of wind
farms, on average 70-80%, both in principle, as a good thing, and
also in practice, among residents living near wind farms.

Some common features have been identified from the results of these
surveys, notably that direct experience provokes a more positive
attitude and that closer proximity results in a higher level of
support. Similarly, where before and after surveys have been
conducted, there is typically a general shift in attitude towards
the positive and that many fears of the potential impact of the
development of the wind farm prove unfounded.

The fears commonly identified are that the wind farm will spoil the
scenery, be a noise nuisance, adversely affect house prices and
tourism and have ill effects on peoples health. Work conducted by
BWEA and others in all these areas have shown no such associations.
For example, wind farms in many cases are tourist attractions in
their own rights, evident from the 30,000 who have passed through
the doors of the Scroby Sands Visitor Centre since it opened in May,
or the 10,000 visitors each year who take the turbine tour at the
Ecotech Centre in Swaffham, Norfolk.

Local residents often prove to be among the strongest advocates for
their wind farm, as councillor Margaret Munn of Ardossan in Scotland
comments:

The Ardrossan wind farm has been overwhelmingly accepted by local
people - instead of spoiling the landscape we believe it has been
enhanced. The turbines are impressive looking, bring a calming
effect to the town and contrary to the belief that they would be
noisy, we have found them to be silent workhorses. 

=======================================================================

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news/resource_download.php?attach_id=ENILFIX-SEUWJ78-N9277OA-BE2Y669
"Wind Power in the UK", by the Sustainable Development Commission,
is a large download, but well worth it for a fuller understanding of
the subject. Section 9.2 is the one about public attitudes.


>When all the windmills are working flat out (although "flat" is hardly
>the right adjective), how are you proposing to supply the other 90 - 95%
>of the nation's electricity needs?


One basic thing I need to get across before answering. The aim is
stabilisation and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, it is not
zero emissions. The latter is a straw man sometimes put up by those
who probably have no better arguments.

The UK target is for 20% of electricity to be produced from
renewable sources by 2020.

The UK has been bequeathed a problem by the party politicians, a
problem which was foreseen and pointed out to them and which they
chose to ignore. The nuclear power stations are coming to the end of
their lives, as the price of gas goes up. As party politicians once
said, a double whammy. While I wouldn't have started from here,
there are ways forward.

1) The most important task is energy conservation, in existing as
well as new buildings. There are some schemes, but not on a large
enough scale.

2) Nuclear power should be retired as it expires and not replaced.

3) Simple gas fired power stations should change roles to one of
backup.

4) Gas fired CHP schemes should continue, though they may become
expensive to run.

5) Coal fired power stations should continue, with some end of pipe
schemes and a move to more advanced forms of burning.

6) Develop tidal stream energy rapidly.

7) Expand biomass dramatically. It may be that as well as co-firing
it is worthwhile building new boilers for existing turbines.

8) Encourage small-scale generation. The advantages of a small wind
turbines have already been outlined, solar water heating is also
already available now.



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Rich Mackin"  wrote in message
news:Rq4Se.2682$t_4.660@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

>  wrote in message
> news:1125586393.979308.280060@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > But to drag this back on topic, if at all possible. I can find no
> > _credible_ reports of wind farms being especially hazardous to
> > railways.  On a very much smaller scale, they are actually beneficial,
> > as some 'remote' lineside equipment is powered by a combination of
> > windmills and solar cells.
>
> A lot of the facilities at the NRM's Shildon branch are powered by such
> sources - I believe the steam locos that work on the small running line
are
> topped up with collected rainwater as well.
>

They are indeed. The rainwater is collected from the roof (mainly solar
panels) of the new shed and pumped up into the storage tank with power from
a wind turbine mounted next to it in the main yard. I assume the power is
diverted into the main building when not pumping water.
According to the enviro-energy info panel inside they've used 24,000+ litres
since opening. All the outside interactive display points have solar panels.
The onsite bus runs on biodiesel (it's a long walk from the car park to the
main Locomotion building!).

All info from my visit on Monday, thoroughly enjoyed it. A word of warning
though, on quiet days the staff try to close up a little early (like many
others!) so do allow plenty of time to visit.

Nick

In message , David Jackson 
 writes

>Drive eastwards out of the Longendale Valley, over Woodhead (see, back 
>on topic) and the skyline is occupied by those monstrous windmills on 
>every summit.  They just don't belong.

They may not "belong" but do you want your electricity to go off ever 
now and then because capacity doesn't meet demand?
-- 
Clive

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:

Points 1, 6, 7, and 8 (with some reservations for 7 and 8) are fair comment.


> 2) Nuclear power should be retired as it expires and not replaced.


Replacements are urgently needed.  If not nuclear, what?


> 3) Simple gas fired power stations should change roles to one of
> backup.


Gas is going to become too expensive, and will be needed for chemical
feedstock as well as a heating fuel.


> 4) Gas fired CHP schemes should continue, though they may become
> expensive to run.

As above.

> 5) Coal fired power stations should continue, with some end of pipe
> schemes and a move to more advanced forms of burning.


Coal is going to become too expensive in the medium term.  Biomass might
be part of the answer, but I doubt if it will be the whole answer.

I don't know what the eventual answer might be to our electricity needs.
Windfarms will only make a very small contibution. A lot more research
is needed on the other renewables such as wave and tidal. A Mersey tidal
barrage was proposed many years ago, but nothing happened. Perhaps the
idea should be revived, jointly with a new Mersey crossing to replace
the never-going-to-happen second bridge at Runcorn. 

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:58:48 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>> 2) Nuclear power should be retired as it expires and not replaced.
>
>Replacements are urgently needed.


According to the DTI, not exactly part of the anti-nuclear lobby (at
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/nuclear/technology/history.shtml),
nuclear power will expire between 2008 and 2035. These are the AGR
stations and the PWR oddity, the Magnox stations are largely expired
already.


>If not nuclear, what?


See my earlier posting.


>> 3) Simple gas fired power stations should change roles to one of
>> backup.
>
>Gas is going to become too expensive, and will be needed for chemical
>feedstock as well as a heating fuel.


Which is why I proposed they are used for backup, rather than their
current continuous use.


>> 4) Gas fired CHP schemes should continue, though they may become
>> expensive to run.
>
>As above.


The difference between these and simple gas fired power stations is
that the gas is used as a heating fuel. It may even be possible to
provide small scale CHP units in houses, I believe there are already
development models being tested.


>> 5) Coal fired power stations should continue, with some end of pipe
>> schemes and a move to more advanced forms of burning.
>
>Coal is going to become too expensive in the medium term.  


Debatable. See Table 8 in the SDC report I referred to earlier.


>Biomass might
>be part of the answer, but I doubt if it will be the whole answer.


I did not claim that it would be the whole answer and I have never
noted anyone else claim it would be the whole answer. However, as I
said in 7), it may be possible to use it to provide alternative
firing for existing turbine units (if these have a suitable long
life). As well as speeding things up this saves on mechanical and
electrical costs.


>I don't know what the eventual answer might be to our electricity needs.
>Windfarms will only make a very small contibution.


To reach the 2010 10% target by wind alone means around 2000 onshore
and 1500 offshore turbines http://www.bwea.com/ref/whywind.html.
Onshore and offshore wind could provide all of the UK 2020
renewables target, 20% of all generation. That would not mean 7000
turbines as they are getting bigger, but it might mean say 5-6000
(an increasing number offshore). http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/ shows
how things are progressing.

You may claim this is a very small contribution, but nuclear power
currently provides 20-25% (depending on the estimate). This is
certainly not covering the UK with turbines, as some have claimed.


>A lot more research
>is needed on the other renewables such as wave and tidal.


There would have been a lot more research by had not the nuclear
lobby killed off Salter's Duck as part of their desire for a PWR
future. However, despite that setback work has continued, as
http://www.bwea.com/marine/devices.html shows.

Due to a lack of UK support the next phase of the Pelamis (three
machines with an output of 2.25MW) will take place in Portugal.

The prototype Seaflow has now been at sea for over two years.

Although some have claimed there is no possibility of future hydro
schemes, that is debatable. The recent Glendoe announcement
http://www.scottish-southern.co.uk/news/viewcurrent.asp?id=152
confirms what others have said, there is space for some large scale
schemes, perhaps doubling existing hydro capacity. There is also
scope for converting some schemes to pumped storage, Sloy being an
obvious one to look at first.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In article , David Jackson
 writes

>The message 
>from David Hansen  contains these words:
>
>Points 1, 6, 7, and 8 (with some reservations for 7 and 8) are fair comment.
>
>> 2) Nuclear power should be retired as it expires and not replaced.
>
>Replacements are urgently needed.  If not nuclear, what?
>
>> 3) Simple gas fired power stations should change roles to one of
>> backup.
>
>Gas is going to become too expensive, and will be needed for chemical
>feedstock as well as a heating fuel.
>
>> 4) Gas fired CHP schemes should continue, though they may become
>> expensive to run.
>
>As above.
>
>> 5) Coal fired power stations should continue, with some end of pipe
>> schemes and a move to more advanced forms of burning.
>
>Coal is going to become too expensive in the medium term.  Biomass might
>be part of the answer, but I doubt if it will be the whole answer.
>
>I don't know what the eventual answer might be to our electricity needs.
>Windfarms will only make a very small contibution. A lot more research
>is needed on the other renewables such as wave and tidal. A Mersey tidal
>barrage was proposed many years ago, but nothing happened. Perhaps the
>idea should be revived, jointly with a new Mersey crossing to replace
>the never-going-to-happen second bridge at Runcorn. 
>


If we could get our nippers to turn off unwanted lights, PC's, Hi Fi
systems, satellite receivers, TV's, it would fix those problems and save
a lorra moolah;-))..

Some hope, Personally I'd put my money in nuclear fusion....
-- 
Tony Sayer

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:26 +0100 someone who may be David Hansen
 wrote this:-


>>the "Wind Report 2004" from E.ON Netz,
>>you will see what a mess has been made in Germany, with no real benefit to
>>the environment.
>
>I take it that you understand the differences between the
>electricity industry systems in Germany and the UK, as well as the
>difference in wind speeds?


No response yet I see, so some spoon feeding.

"Blowing Away the Myths" http://www.bwea.com/ref/ref_three.html
refers to this report and is worth reading and is only eight pages.

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news/resource_download.php?attach_id=ENILFIX-SEUWJ78-N9277OA-BE2Y669
is a link to the SDC report "Wind Power in the UK". Below is part of
Annex B:

===================================================================

A critique of the E.oN Netz study

A recent report from the German network operator E.on Netz, Wind
Year 2003  an overview, appears to suggest that capacity values
are much lower, and additional balancing costs much higher, than the
figures quoted above. The report also highlights a low energy
productivity of German wind. It claims that the utility needs
reserve capacities amounting to 50-60% of the installed wind power
capacity, and that the extra balancing costs (for 6% wind) were
about 12/MWh of wind  over six times the estimates of Figure 6. On
closer inspection, there appear to be several reasons why the
numbers are quite different from the consensus data discussed
above.

Firstly, low wind speeds in Germany mean that the system operators
will experience more fluctuations in wind output than in windier
regions. To illustrate this point, assume that the average capacity
factor across Germany is 15% and the corresponding capacity factor
in Britain is close to its long-term average of about 30%. To
generate 8.5 TWh of wind in Germany requires 6250 MW of wind plant,
whereas only half that amount of plant would be required in Britain.
The power swings from 6250 MW of German wind would therefore be
higher than from 3125 MW of wind in Britain.

Secondly, it appears that some of the apparent difficulties the
utility has with wind are more to do with administrative procedures
and barriers; the network operators tend to operate independently,
so  some of the benefits of an integrated network are lost.

Thirdly, plant commitments are made several hours ahead, and the
extent to which schedules are revised nearer to real time is not
clear. The concept of a one hour gate closure, as in Great
Britain, or revising a schedule up to one hour before production,
appears not to be used.

It may also be noted that the report does not discuss the
all-important question of the interaction between variations in
consumer demand and variations in wind output.

===================================================================

Note that "Wind Report 2004" actually covers "Wind Year 2003", hence
the apparent confusion on years. I have read all the reports
concerned.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:48:02 +0100, David Hansen  
 wrote:



> "Blowing Away the Myths" http://www.bwea.com/ref/ref_three.html
> refers to this report and is worth reading and is only eight pages.
>
> http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news/resource_download.php?attach_id=ENILFIX-SEUWJ78-N9277OA-BE2Y669
> is a link to the SDC report "Wind Power in the UK". Below is part of
> Annex B:
>
> ===================================================================
>
> A critique of the E.oN Netz study
>
> A recent report from the German network operator E.on Netz, ‘Wind
> Year 2003 – an overview’, appears to suggest that capacity values
> are much lower, and additional balancing costs much higher, than the
> figures quoted above. The report also highlights a low energy
> productivity of German wind. It claims that the utility needs
> reserve capacities amounting to 50-60% of the installed wind power
> capacity, and that the extra balancing costs (for 6% wind) were
> about €12/MWh of wind – over six times the estimates of Figure 6. On
> closer inspection, there appear to be several reasons why the
> numbers are quite different from the ‘consensus’ data discussed
> above.
>
> Firstly, low wind speeds in Germany mean that the system operators
> will experience more fluctuations in wind output than in windier
> regions. To illustrate this point, assume that the average capacity
> factor across Germany is 15% and the corresponding capacity factor
> in Britain is close to its long-term average of about 30%. To
> generate 8.5 TWh of wind in Germany requires 6250 MW of wind plant,
> whereas only half that amount of plant would be required in Britain.
> The power swings from 6250 MW of German wind would therefore be
> higher than from 3125 MW of wind in Britain.
>
> Secondly, it appears that some of the apparent difficulties the
> utility has with wind are more to do with administrative procedures
> and barriers; the network operators tend to operate independently,
> so  some of the benefits of an integrated network are lost.
>
> Thirdly, plant commitments are made several hours ahead, and the
> extent to which schedules are revised nearer to ‘real time’ is not
> clear. The concept of a ‘one hour gate closure’, as in Great
> Britain, or revising a schedule up to one hour before production,
> appears not to be used.
>
> It may also be noted that the report does not discuss the
> all-important question of the interaction between variations in
> consumer demand and variations in wind output.
>
> ===================================================================
>
> Note that "Wind Report 2004" actually covers "Wind Year 2003", hence
> the apparent confusion on years. I have read all the reports
> concerned.


Thanks for posting these David very interesting. What i can't work out is  
that the ability of the Grid to deal with variations in wind is mentioned  
as being manageable with up to 20% of generation by wind power. What  
percentage is the current/ under construction generation by wind?

Paul

The message 
from tony sayer  contains these words:


> If we could get our nippers to turn off unwanted lights, PC's, Hi Fi
> systems, satellite receivers, TV's, it would fix those problems and save
> a lorra moolah;-))..


I think we'll include my wife in with the "nippers" (my nippers are in
their mid to late twenties).  I get moaned at for going round pushing
off-buttons - why should everything start up instantly? - *they* don't,
except when the phone rings.
 

> Some hope, Personally I'd put my money in nuclear fusion....


Among other things. 

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

tony sayer  wrote:

>
>Personally I'd put my money in nuclear fusion....



I would not invest a single penny of my money in it until it is shown
to work on a commercial scale.  At present, it doesn't work at all, as
nuclear fusion has never been achieved by mankind.

And until nuclear fusion can be shown to work, it is just another
massively expensive job creation scheme.

;-)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tony   Polson wrote:


> tony sayer  wrote:
> >
> >Personally I'd put my money in nuclear fusion....
> 
> I would not invest a single penny of my money in it until it is shown
> to work on a commercial scale.  


As has been pointed out, we /have/ a working fusion reactor - and have 
had, for much longer than man has been around - at a safe and - 
usually - comfortable distance from us!  Quite a number of "renewable" 
energy sources are ultimately driven by it (tidal power being a bit of 
an exception).

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:23:39 +0100, David Jackson
 wrote: 


>They are 
>not worth all the disruption they cause during construction or the 
>visual pollution they inflict on us. 


Visual pollution? 

Two miles across the field from a mate's house is a "combined cycle
gas turbine station at the forefront of technology"  -  so says some
website blurb about it. Doesn't matter how whizz-bang-wonderful it is,
its still a large grey lump on the skyline.

http://www.freefoto.com/preview.jsp?id=32-08-1&k=Gas+Powered+Power+Station%2C+Sutton+Bridge

A similar distance from another mate's house there's two large wind
turbines which between them supply 75% of the town's needs. No noise
and only a couple of lights on the top to warn the local RAF planes. 

http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/op_ecotech.html
http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/op_swaffhamII.html

I know which I'd rather have at the bottom of my garden.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:42:15 +0100 someone who may be "Paul
Hutchinson"  wrote this:-


>What i can't work out is  
>that the ability of the Grid to deal with variations in wind is mentioned  
>as being manageable with up to 20% of generation by wind power.


In terms of engineering the electricity system could cope with 100%
of generation by wind power. However, beyond 20% it becomes
expensive to do so under current economic conditions. Of course
current economic conditions may not remain current, the price of gas
does not look like it is going to come down soon while the fuel for
wind turbines is free.


>What  
>percentage is the current/ under construction generation by wind?


You need the report I keep mentioning. Figure 3 says that renewables
accounted for 3.2% of generation in 2004. Figure 4 says that wind
(and wave, which is negligible) accounted for 12% of renewable
generation in 2003. By contrast landfill gas and hydro accounted for
around 31% each.

http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/ breaks down what is operating, under
construction and approved. There are also figures in their press
releases, http://www.bwea.com/media/news/100505.html being an
example.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In message  on Thu, 08 Sep 2005
01:38:17 GMT in uk.railway, Ben C  tapped out on
the keyboard:


> 
> A similar distance from another mate's house there's two large wind
> turbines which between them supply 75% of the town's needs. No noise
> and only a couple of lights on the top to warn the local RAF planes. 
> 
> http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/op_ecotech.html
> http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/op_swaffhamII.html
> 
> I know which I'd rather have at the bottom of my garden. 


75% of the town or 75% of the homes ?  And where do the customers get their
electricity from when the wind to too weak or too strong to turn the turbines ?

--
John Youles   Norwich   England   UK

In message , at 06:14:37 on 
Thu, 8 Sep 2005, John Youles  remarked:

>> A similar distance from another mate's house there's two large wind
>> turbines which between them supply 75% of the town's needs.
>
>75% of the town or 75% of the homes ?


It's hardly a "town", the supply is for 1,200 homes.
-- 
Roland Perry

In article , Tony Polson
 writes

>tony sayer  wrote:
>>
>>Personally I'd put my money in nuclear fusion....
>
>
>I would not invest a single penny of my money in it until it is shown
>to work on a commercial scale.  At present, it doesn't work at all, as
>nuclear fusion has never been achieved by mankind.
>
>And until nuclear fusion can be shown to work, it is just another
>massively expensive job creation scheme.
>
>;-)
>
>


Chill out bruvver!!! that was a sarcastic joke;-)))

chances of that costing next to nowt and them switching the lights off
are about much the same:::
-- 
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 06:14:37 GMT someone who may be John Youles
 wrote this:-


>And where do the customers get their
>electricity from when the wind to too weak or too strong to turn the turbines ?


From the rest of the electricity system, just as they do if any
other source of electricity is not generating. All forms of
generation do not work 100% of the time and wind farms are no
exception to this rule.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Alan J. Flavell"  wrote:


>As has been pointed out, we /have/ a working fusion reactor - and have 
>had, for much longer than man has been around - at a safe and - 
>usually - comfortable distance from us!


It isn't exactly man-made, and it isn't exactly controllable.  ;-)


>Quite a number of "renewable" 
>energy sources are ultimately driven by it (tidal power being a bit of 
>an exception).


The tides are driven by the gravitational attraction of the moon, sun,
the other planets in the solar system and even some of the larger
asteroids.  

Last time I looked, tidal predictions were being done with over 70
harmonic components.  The sun is either first or second on the list
depending on location.

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 00:24:36 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
 wrote:


>On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tony   Polson wrote:
>
>> tony sayer  wrote:
>> >
>> >Personally I'd put my money in nuclear fusion....
>> 
>> I would not invest a single penny of my money in it until it is shown
>> to work on a commercial scale.  
>
>As has been pointed out, we /have/ a working fusion reactor - and have 
>had, for much longer than man has been around - at a safe and - 
>usually - comfortable distance from us!  Quite a number of "renewable" 
>energy sources are ultimately driven by it (tidal power being a bit of 
>an exception).


If I am interpreting this correctly you'll find that it *does* have an
influence on the tide - along with the moon..........

G

In article ,
Tony   Polson   wrote:

>tony sayer  wrote:
>>
>>Personally I'd put my money in nuclear fusion....


Which is, at present, 50-odd years away. just like it was 50 years ago.

Besides, using D-T fusion (the "easy" option - for small values of
"easy") does nothing to get you out of the fuel trap, as Tritium
ain't precisely common naturally. D-D fusion gets you out of the
fuel trap, but is much harder to do (and leaves you with a 
tritium outgassing problem, as well as the perennial waste issue[1])


>I would not invest a single penny of my money in it until it is shown
>to work on a commercial scale.  At present, it doesn't work at all, as
>nuclear fusion has never been achieved by mankind.


Um. Point of issue. Nuclear fusion most certainly has been achieved
by mankind. At Bikini, Christmas Island, Muraroa, the badlands
of Khazakstan and Lop Nop, among other places. Controlled, confined
fusion has also been achieved on a fairly regular basis. It's 
a controlled, confined, sustained fusion reaction which produces an
energy surplus which has so far proved elusive for us. 

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
		"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
						(Peter D. Rieden)

In article ,
Alan J. Flavell  wrote:

>On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tony   Polson wrote:
>
>> tony sayer  wrote:
>> >
>> >Personally I'd put my money in nuclear fusion....
>> 
>> I would not invest a single penny of my money in it until it is shown
>> to work on a commercial scale.  
>
>As has been pointed out, we /have/ a working fusion reactor - and have 
>had, for much longer than man has been around - at a safe and - 
>usually - comfortable distance from us!  Quite a number of "renewable" 
>energy sources are ultimately driven by it (tidal power being a bit of 
>an exception).


Well, about 1/3 of tidal power is driven by the mass of that reactor's
containment structure.. ;)

Geothermal is probably the least solar-driven of the renewables.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Andrew Robert Breen wrote:


> Alan J. Flavell  wrote:
....
> >had, for much longer than man has been around - at a safe and - 
> >usually - comfortable distance from us!  Quite a number of "renewable" 
> >energy sources are ultimately driven by it (tidal power being a bit of 
> >an exception).
> 
> Well, about 1/3 of tidal power is driven by the mass of that reactor's
> containment structure.. ;)


hence my oblique remark about "a bit of" an exception ;-)

perhaps I needed a smiley to make it more evident.


> Geothermal is probably the least solar-driven of the renewables.


Good point - that one often seems to be forgotten in discussion.

On 8 Sep 2005 11:37:22 +0100, Andrew Robert Breen wrote in
<dfp492$6i6l$1@central.aber.ac.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

[...]

> Um. Point of issue. Nuclear fusion most certainly has been achieved
> by mankind. At [...] the badlands of Khazakstan 


Um. The badlands of Kazakhstan are roughly 99.5% of the inhabited
parts of the country, and that's without worrying about the effects of
nukular activity. Or indeed what's happening in the bit of Russia that
sits in the middle of .kz...

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On 8 Sep 2005 11:37:22 +0100 someone who may be azb@aber.ac.uk
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote this:-


>Besides, using D-T fusion (the "easy" option - for small values of
>"easy") does nothing to get you out of the fuel trap, as Tritium
>ain't precisely common naturally.


Presumably it would be made in fusion reactors, as was the case for
nuclear weapons.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In article ,
Ross   wrote:

>On 8 Sep 2005 11:37:22 +0100, Andrew Robert Breen wrote in
><dfp492$6i6l$1@central.aber.ac.uk>, seen in uk.railway:
>
>[...]
>> Um. Point of issue. Nuclear fusion most certainly has been achieved
>> by mankind. At [...] the badlands of Khazakstan 
>
>Um. The badlands of Kazakhstan are roughly 99.5% of the inhabited
>parts of the country, and that's without worrying about the effects of
>nukular activity. Or indeed what's happening in the bit of Russia that
>sits in the middle of .kz...


Baikonur? I love the smell of Protons in the morning..

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In message 
          "Alan J. Flavell"  wrote:


> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
> 
> > Alan J. Flavell  wrote:
> ...
> > >had, for much longer than man has been around - at a safe and - 
> > >usually - comfortable distance from us!  Quite a number of "renewable" 
> > >energy sources are ultimately driven by it (tidal power being a bit of 
> > >an exception).
> > 
> > Well, about 1/3 of tidal power is driven by the mass of that reactor's
> > containment structure.. ;)
> 
> hence my oblique remark about "a bit of" an exception ;-)
> 
> perhaps I needed a smiley to make it more evident.
> 
> > Geothermal is probably the least solar-driven of the renewables.
> 
> Good point - that one often seems to be forgotten in discussion.


Possibly because, in this country at least, it is the least exploited.  AFAIK
the only actual working, as opposed to experimental, geothermal project is
here in Southanpton.  However, I believe it used purely for space-heating,
not power generation.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"Alan J. Flavell"  wrote:

>
>> Geothermal is probably the least solar-driven of the renewables.
>
>Good point - that one often seems to be forgotten in discussion.



The Queen chose hydro-electric for Windsor Castle, but geothermal for
Buckingham Palace.

azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:


>>I would not invest a single penny of my money in it until it is shown
>>to work on a commercial scale.  At present, it doesn't work at all, as
>>nuclear fusion has never been achieved by mankind.
>
>Um. Point of issue. Nuclear fusion most certainly has been achieved
>by mankind. At Bikini, Christmas Island, Muraroa, the badlands
>of Khazakstan and Lop Nop, among other places. Controlled, confined
>fusion has also been achieved on a fairly regular basis. 


OK, accepted.


>It's a controlled, confined, sustained fusion reaction which produces an
>energy surplus which has so far proved elusive for us. 


Agreed.  I particularly liked your comment about it being 50 years
away 50 years ago, and 50 years away now.  I think it will always be
50 years away - near enough to persuade governments to fund it, but
far enough away so no-one gets the sack for non-performance.

;-)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:59:43 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
 wrote this:-


>AFAIK
>the only actual working, as opposed to experimental, geothermal project is
>here in Southanpton.  However, I believe it used purely for space-heating,
>not power generation.


It is only (central) government that is fixated on electricity
generation and largely tries to ignore other forms of energy
consumption. Others, including the Sustainable Development
Commission, are interested in other forms of energy consumption.

Why there is the fixation I don't know. However, it does mean
(central) government can try and ignore questions to do with
transport and heating that they may not want to answer. One of the
best ways of saving energy is probably to fit solar water heaters to
many buildings, but support for this is not great.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In message 
          David Hansen  wrote:


> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:59:43 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >AFAIK
> >the only actual working, as opposed to experimental, geothermal project is
> >here in Southanpton.  However, I believe it used purely for space-heating,
> >not power generation.
> 
> It is only (central) government that is fixated on electricity
> generation and largely tries to ignore other forms of energy
> consumption. Others, including the Sustainable Development
> Commission, are interested in other forms of energy consumption.


Given there are only 3 forms of energy consumption, Heating/Lighting,
Transport, and a long way third, operation of technical equipment, all three
of which can be achieved by electricity.  Agreed local areas can bypass the
heat-electricity-heat stage but it becomes increasingly ineficient the
further you get from the heat source, which is CHP stations are not the
panacea some people think.  The provision of a secure electricity generating
system is vital to the functioning of modern society, look at the chaos in
New Orleans at the moment because they have no power.  Despite your fixation
with '(central)' government (which one Westminster or Edinburgh?) 
electricity generation is quite rightly a high priority for any government.


> 
> Why there is the fixation I don't know. However, it does mean
> (central) government can try and ignore questions to do with
> transport and heating that they may not want to answer. 


Are the conspiracy theory, the men in black are coming for you, assuming
their train isn't caped.


> One of the best ways of saving energy is probably to fit solar water
> heaters to many buildings, but support for this is not great.
> 
> 


Things have hopefully changed but when I investigated the possibilities for
my house, the payback time was 20+ years, and I'm in the deep south.  The
economics may well work better for large buidings, eg flats, office,
hospitals.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In message 
          Tony   Polson  wrote:


> "Alan J. Flavell"  wrote:
> >
> >> Geothermal is probably the least solar-driven of the renewables.
> >
> >Good point - that one often seems to be forgotten in discussion.
> 
> 
> The Queen chose hydro-electric for Windsor Castle, but geothermal for
> Buckingham Palace.
> 
> 


I'm surprised the Thames provides enough flow to make it a practical
proposition.  Is she going for wind turbines at Sandringham?

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:09:41 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
 wrote this:-


>The provision of a secure electricity generating
>system is vital to the functioning of modern society,

Indeed.

>Despite your fixation
>with '(central)' government (which one Westminster or Edinburgh?) 
>electricity generation is quite rightly a high priority for any government.


It has not been for a considerable time. Central government says it
believes the market will provide, with suitable monetary signals to
the market for specific reasons (The Non Fossil Fuel Obligation
being an example, though most of the money was used to prop up
nuclear power, the various Renewables Obligations are a step forward
from that).

A result of this, "our policy is that we have no policy", approach
is the announcement yesterday by Powergen (E.ON) that they want to
build a gas fired power station. That is a prime example of short
term thinking, there are already lots of the things and the
likelihood of it getting gas at a reasonable price over the decades
to come must be slim. Markets are (sometimes) good at short term
thinking, but generally no good at all at long term planning.


>> One of the best ways of saving energy is probably to fit solar water
>> heaters to many buildings, but support for this is not great.
>
>Things have hopefully changed but when I investigated the possibilities for
>my house, the payback time was 20+ years, and I'm in the deep south.


Such things do indeed have a relatively long payback period if
fitted to an existing house, though things like www.solartwin.com
have changed the balance somewhat. However, money is not the only
reason for fitting them.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"David Hansen"  wrote in message
news:tti0i1po6fqipdsk4h6t5hdmen42rrkqhd@4ax.com...

> A result of this, "our policy is that we have no policy", approach
> is the announcement yesterday by Powergen (E.ON) that they want to
> build a gas fired power station. That is a prime example of short
> term thinking, there are already lots of the things and the
> likelihood of it getting gas at a reasonable price over the decades
> to come must be slim. Markets are (sometimes) good at short term
> thinking, but generally no good at all at long term planning.


Indeed.

The UK's "dash for gas" will, I think, eventually be recognized as one of
the great strategic follies of the late 20th Century.  When the electricity
generators have gobbled up the remaining deposits of gas (or, more likely,
we are held to ransom by the countries which own it), I wonder how I and
millions of others will be able to fuel our cookers and central heating?
Premium fuels, such as gas for domestic use, and gasoline / diesel for road
(and rail - wow, back on topic) vehicles should surely be reserved for those
purposes, while less readily-distributed fuels such as heavy oil, coal or
nuclear (and wind, in the right place) are used for electricity generation.

I can't believe that it's beyond the wit of man to devise effective and
reasonably economical methods of trapping the oxides of suphur, carbon and
nitrogen emitted from coal-burning stations, in which case we (and the rest
of the world) can have safe and clean-ish power to last centuries (such as
until nuclear fusion moves from the atoll, via the lab, to the generator).

S

In message 
          David Hansen  wrote:


> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:09:41 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
>  wrote this:-
> 
> > The provision of a secure electricity generating system is vital to the
> > functioning of modern society,
> 
> Indeed.


We agree so far :-)


> 
> > Despite your fixation with '(central)' government (which one Westminster
> > or Edinburgh?)  electricity generation is quite rightly a high priority
> > for any government.
> 
> It has not been for a considerable time. 


You just said that they were 'fixated' on it to the (relative) exclusion of
other energy generation schemes.


> Central government says it believes the market will provide, 


Cite?

This current shower are careful not say anthing so definite.


> with suitable monetary signals to the market for specific reasons (The Non
> Fossil Fuel Obligation being an example, though most of the money was used
> to prop up nuclear power, the various Renewables Obligations are a step
> forward from that).
> 
> A result of this, "our policy is that we have no policy", approach
> is the announcement yesterday by Powergen (E.ON) that they want to
> build a gas fired power station. 


Last time I looked Powergen wasn't 'central government'.


> That is a prime example of short term thinking, there are already lots of
> the things and the likelihood of it getting gas at a reasonable price over
> the decades to come must be slim. 


Depends what your comparison is.  You need to generate x number of MW by this
time next year (or whatever the time-scale for building is) what do you go
for, Gas fired PS are off-the-shelf items, they are practically at the level
of ringing up Tescos and getting them to deliver one.  The only thing that
comes close is a coal-fired station and they are so last year.  Anything else
is either a very long time before it comes on stream, nuclear or hydro, or is
still in the experimental stages, wind and waves.  Although wind-power is
rapidly becoming main-stream.


> Markets are (sometimes) good at short term thinking, but generally no good
> at all at long term planning.


And you think 'central governments' are?


> 
> > > One of the best ways of saving energy is probably to fit solar water
> > > heaters to many buildings, but support for this is not great.
> > 
> > Things have hopefully changed but when I investigated the possibilities
> > for my house, the payback time was 20+ years, and I'm in the deep south.
> 
> Such things do indeed have a relatively long payback period if fitted to an
> existing house, though things like www.solartwin.com have changed the
> balance somewhat. However, money is not the only reason for fitting them.
> 


It is in practical terms for the average house-holder.  It was much cheaper
to reduce my energy bills by installing proper insulation than by installing
solar water-heating,  In fact the former made the latter that much less
viable.  The payback on insulation was about 3 years.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"Steve Pardoe"  wrote:


>I can't believe that it's beyond the wit of man to devise effective and
>reasonably economical methods of trapping the oxides of suphur, carbon and
>nitrogen emitted from coal-burning stations



I think you will find that it *is* beyond the wit of man.  

Unfortunately, that won't stop George W Bush proclaiming 
it as the Unites States' answer to climate change.

"David Hansen"  wrote in message
news:c3guh1p27kk5k4peftlj8judk3higp5p7p@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:26 +0100 someone who may be David Hansen
>  wrote this:-
>
> >>the "Wind Report 2004" from E.ON Netz,
> >>you will see what a mess has been made in Germany, with no real benefit
to
> >>the environment.
> >
> >I take it that you understand the differences between the
> >electricity industry systems in Germany and the UK, as well as the
> >difference in wind speeds?
>
> No response yet I see, so some spoon feeding.


Very kind.  I had thought your question rhetorical.


> "Blowing Away the Myths" http://www.bwea.com/ref/ref_three.html
> refers to this report and is worth reading and is only eight pages.


BWEA is hardly an impartial observer of the energy generation scene.
Doubtless you are as well aware of its membership and objectives as I am.


>

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news/resource_download.php?attach_id=ENILFIX-SEUWJ78-N9277OA-BE2Y669

> is a link to the SDC report "Wind Power in the UK". Below is part of
> Annex B:
>
> Firstly, low wind speeds in Germany mean that the system operators
> will experience more fluctuations in wind output than in windier
> regions.


If wind speeds in Germany are so low, surely the effective capacity
calculations from E.ON Netz reinforce the argument that Germany has
over-invested in wind energy?  For reference, even the relatively pro-wind
www.cheshirerenewables.org.uk regards Cheshire as an area of "generally low
wind speeds".


> It may also be noted that the report does not discuss the
> all-important question of the interaction between variations in
> consumer demand and variations in wind output.


That assertion (by your quoted source) is completely wrong.  Pages 6 and 7
of the E.ON report do indeed discuss that topic.....

"The experience of the past year has shown that whenever electricity
consumption was comparatively high because of the weather, namely during
cold wintry or hot summer periods, wind power plants could make only a minor
contribution towards covering consumption."

And.....

"This relationship was again confirmed in Germany during the heatwave of
July / August 2003 (FIGURE 6). The summer electricity consumption was at
that time at an above-average high level due to the temperature. At the same
time, traditional power stations had to partly reduce their capacity so as
not to impermissibly heat up the rivers that serve as sources of cooling
water. During this phase, wind power production was also very low due to the
lack of wind and was not able to
contribute towards relieving the strained supply situation".

"FIGURE 7 shows that in the winter of 2003 also, the contribution of wind
power towards covering load was low precisely in phases of particularly high
electricity demand. The wind power infeed curve during the week of so-called
"midweek peak load" in the E.ON grid in 2003 is shown."

Despite the tirade launched against my original post, I am not against wind
energy, simply against 'inappropriate development', which is by definition
'harmful', within Designated Areas such as Green Belt, ASLEVs, ASCVs, SSIs
and so on.  Supporting established planning regulations by opposing such a
breach of them is not Nimbyism, it's adherence to principle.  There are
plenty of parts of the UK (and indeed Cheshire) which can readily
accommodate wind turbines, and would not be in Designated Areas.

Still, it's gratifying to find so many people here who are well-informed and
feel strongly enough to contribute to such a relatively off-topic
discussion.  It's the longest thread I've seen for a while.

Steve P

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> Figure 3 says that renewables
> accounted for 3.2% of generation in 2004. Figure 4 says that wind
> (and wave, which is negligible) accounted for 12% of renewable
> generation in 2003. By contrast landfill gas and hydro accounted for
> around 31% each.


Renewables: 3.2% of generation.

Wind: 12% of renewables...

Not a lot, is it?

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

In message , at 
16:36:23 on Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Steve Pardoe  
remarked:

>When the electricity
>generators have gobbled up the remaining deposits of gas (or, more likely,
>we are held to ransom by the countries which own it), I wonder how I and
>millions of others will be able to fuel our cookers and central heating?


Fuel for cooking is very low volume. A household can be supplied by 
bottled gas, for cooking, where a medium sized one will last for weeks. 
(This is more an indication of the small volume required, than a 
suggestion of switching from mains to bottled).

Central heating could be halved if everyone wore a woolly jumper. It's 
unfortunate that so many modern houses don't have fireplaces, but 
boilers can be powered from many different fuels, and carrying solid 
fuels in from the shed will warm you up too!
-- 
Roland Perry

In article ,
Tony   Polson   wrote:

>"Steve Pardoe"  wrote:
>
>>I can't believe that it's beyond the wit of man to devise effective and
>>reasonably economical methods of trapping the oxides of suphur, carbon and
>>nitrogen emitted from coal-burning stations
>
>
>I think you will find that it *is* beyond the wit of man.  


No, it isn't. Sulphur oxides are dealable with (why else do you think
there are trains of limestone heading for coal-burning power
stations?). Nitrogen oxides ditto. Sulphur is harder, but it can
be tapped off from the exhaust and piped to long-term storage
(natural gas pockets). They've been doing it in .no for a
few years now.


>Unfortunately, that won't stop George W Bush proclaiming 
>it as the Unites States' answer to climate change.


So? .us is pretty irrelevent in this arguement - but flue
scrubbing and carbon sequestration offers a real chance
of China sustaining economic growth (essentially coal
fired, you'd recall) without immense climatic consequences
(which they'd be about the first to suffer).

Carbon sequestration has been tried, it does appear to work
(at the least it delays the cycling of fossil coaron into the
atmnosphere) - and if you can come up with a better idea I
suggest that you take it to Beijing rather than flogging it
in here, 'cos that's the place which matters.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		
		"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:16:34 +0100, "Steve Pardoe"
 wrote:


>Despite the tirade launched against my original post, I am not against wind
>energy, simply against 'inappropriate development', which is by definition
>'harmful', within Designated Areas such as Green Belt, ASLEVs, ASCVs, SSIs
>and so on.  Supporting established planning regulations by opposing such a
>breach of them is not Nimbyism, it's adherence to principle.


But your original post didn't oppose the development on those grounds.
You were suggesting there might be a serious danger of a blade
breaking loose and landing on the railway 350m away - which smacks of
a nimby grasping at straws.

One of the reasonto build ITER it the fact that successfull nuclear
fusion has been achived in a controlled way. Even though the reaction
only lasted a very short time, it was sufficient to prove it can be
done. I believe you do not understand the enormous task the
international society has given itself.

It is only an extremely sad thing that now different groups now can not
cometo an agreement as to where to build the 1st commercial scale
reactor. France or Japan. The estimated costs are around 10billion
(very cleverly the currency isn't mentionedbut it is save to say it is
either Euro or Usd) but given the history of these type of project it
may well endup to 100billion (that's 1 year Iraq war not being fought).
Me for one say build both of them, have some competition.

I for one hope to see the day one works! Amagine the wonder.

Robert A. Reissaus
Amsterdam

Tony Polson schreef:


> tony sayer  wrote:
> >
> >Personally I'd put my money in nuclear fusion....
>
>
> I would not invest a single penny of my money in it until it is shown
> to work on a commercial scale.  At present, it doesn't work at all, as
> nuclear fusion has never been achieved by mankind.
>
> And until nuclear fusion can be shown to work, it is just another
> massively expensive job creation scheme.
> 
> ;-)

In message , 
r.a.reissaus@risdi.com writes

>It is only an extremely sad thing that now different groups now can not 
>cometo an agreement as to where to build the 1st commercial scale 
>reactor. France or Japan.


The siting of ITER at Cadarache was announced in June, a few days before 
Paris didn't get the Olympics...
-- 
Goalie of the Century

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:41:35 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>boilers can be powered from many different fuels, and carrying solid 
>fuels in from the shed will warm you up too!


http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news/index.php?page=get_article&article_id=DHGQGNW-HJ81GEB-Y6565NJ-U8KYEBF
outlines the possibilities of using wood for heating in for
Scotland.

Other than focal point fires stoking of boilers is likely to be
automatic, with occasional filling up of the hopper, assuming one is
not using a heat store.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:38:15 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
 wrote this:-


>You just said that they were 'fixated' on it to the (relative) exclusion of
>other energy generation schemes.


Different fixations. Central government is fixated on targets for
emission stabilisation/reductions in the electricity sector, but
rather less in other sectors (including water heating). However,
they don't have a fixation "keeping the lights on".


>> Central government says it believes the market will provide, 
>
>Cite?
>
>This current shower are careful not say anthing so definite.


I agree. However, as they have continued the policies of their
predecessors in this area it is fairly easy to guess their beliefs.


>Last time I looked Powergen wasn't 'central government'.


Precisely. The announcement illustrates exactly my point of a lack
of central government policy, but instead a view that the market
will provide (with some price signals to it).


>> Such things do indeed have a relatively long payback period if fitted to an
>> existing house, though things like www.solartwin.com have changed the
>> balance somewhat. However, money is not the only reason for fitting them.
>
>It is in practical terms for the average house-holder.


I doubt if there are many such people. Individuals have different
motivations for what they do. People who adopt such things early on
are not doing it for the money, but as more people adopt it the
motivation of individuals may change.


>It was much cheaper
>to reduce my energy bills by installing proper insulation than by installing
>solar water-heating,


Is that insulation of the house or of the hot water pipes?


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:16:59 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>Not a lot, is it?


At one time nuclear produced 0% of electricity, now it is 20% (to
use one figure) and it is likely to go to 0% unless central
government makes a mistake.

At one time wind produced 0% of electricity, now it is 0.7% and it
will be 1.5% at the end of 2005 and should provide the bulk of 10%
by 2010 (figures from http://www.bwea.com/media/news/100505.html).


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:16:34 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Pardoe"
 wrote this:-


>BWEA is hardly an impartial observer of the energy generation scene.


Of course. However, I have been clear to outline the sources of
information I am using. Perhaps you could tell us where you heard
about the E.ON Netz report?


>> It may also be noted that the report does not discuss the
>> all-important question of the interaction between variations in
>> consumer demand and variations in wind output.
>
>That assertion (by your quoted source) is completely wrong.  Pages 6 and 7
>of the E.ON report do indeed discuss that topic.....


Not in the way and detail the SDC report considers these
interactions.



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> At one time nuclear produced 0% of electricity, now it is 20% (to
> use one figure) and it is likely to go to 0% unless central
> government makes a mistake.


I would say "...gets its act together".


> At one time wind produced 0% of electricity, now it is 0.7% and it
> will be 1.5% at the end of 2005 and should provide the bulk of 10%
> by 2010 (figures from http://www.bwea.com/media/news/100505.html).


You keep on quoting figures which show that the windmills aren't
working, but you insist that they're the way forward.  10% by
2010...perhaps.  There's a lot more watts to find for the other 90%. 
Perhaps when a way is found to produce the 90% it can be expanded a
little and used to replace the odd 10% so that the windmills can be
dismantled and the ground returned to its previous condition.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:


>In article ,
>Tony   Polson   wrote:
>>"Steve Pardoe"  wrote:
>>
>>>I can't believe that it's beyond the wit of man to devise effective and
>>>reasonably economical methods of trapping the oxides of suphur, carbon and
>>>nitrogen emitted from coal-burning stations
>>
>>
>>I think you will find that it *is* beyond the wit of man.  
>
>No, it isn't. Sulphur oxides are dealable with (why else do you think
>there are trains of limestone heading for coal-burning power
>stations?). Nitrogen oxides ditto. Sulphur is harder, but it can
>be tapped off from the exhaust and piped to long-term storage
>(natural gas pockets). They've been doing it in .no for a
>few years now.
>
>>Unfortunately, that won't stop George W Bush proclaiming 
>>it as the Unites States' answer to climate change.
>
>So? .us is pretty irrelevent in this arguement - but flue
>scrubbing and carbon sequestration offers a real chance
>of China sustaining economic growth (essentially coal
>fired, you'd recall) without immense climatic consequences
>(which they'd be about the first to suffer).
>
>Carbon sequestration has been tried, it does appear to work
>(at the least it delays the cycling of fossil coaron into the
>atmnosphere) - and if you can come up with a better idea I
>suggest that you take it to Beijing rather than flogging it
>in here, 'cos that's the place which matters.



Some interesting points, thanks.  

Having been peripherally involved in a flue gas desulphurisation
project or two, they don't impress me much.  And I cannot see the
Chinese forking out lots of dosh to bury their carbon dioxide, even if
it works, which I still doubt.

The only answer to all of this is nuclear, though I dread the thought
of seeing more nuclear power stations built in the UK with the present
"safety" culture at the operational level.

r.a.reissaus@risdi.com wrote:


>One of the reasonto build ITER it the fact that successfull nuclear
>fusion has been achived in a controlled way. Even though the reaction
>only lasted a very short time, it was sufficient to prove it can be
>done. I believe you do not understand the enormous task the
>international society has given itself.



I believe I *do* understand it.  I believe I understand it only too
well ...  Long after the oil runs out, a viable nuclear fusion-powered
power station will still be at least 50 years away.

But lots of highly paid scientists will have been employed at enormous
expense in the meantime, which will no doubt please them immensely.

In message 
          David Hansen  wrote:


> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:38:15 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >You just said that they were 'fixated' on it to the (relative) exclusion of
> >other energy generation schemes.
> 
> Different fixations. Central government is fixated on targets for
> emission stabilisation/reductions in the electricity sector, but
> rather less in other sectors (including water heating). However,
> they don't have a fixation "keeping the lights on".


Doesn't mean it is not seen as a priority.


> 
> >> Central government says it believes the market will provide, 
> >
> >Cite?
> >
> >This current shower are careful not say anthing so definite.
> 
> I agree. However, as they have continued the policies of their
> predecessors in this area it is fairly easy to guess their beliefs.


So they haven't actually stated it, you are just making assumptions.


> 
> >Last time I looked Powergen wasn't 'central government'.
> 
> Precisely. The announcement illustrates exactly my point of a lack
> of central government policy, but instead a view that the market
> will provide (with some price signals to it).
> 
> > > Such things do indeed have a relatively long payback period if fitted
> > > to an existing house, though things like www.solartwin.com have changed
> > > the balance somewhat. However, money is not the only reason for fitting
> > > them.
> >
> > It is in practical terms for the average house-holder.
> 
> I doubt if there are many such people. 


OK. domestic solar panels have been on the market for at least 20 years to my
certain knowledge, how many houses as a percentage of the whole have them
now?


> Individuals have different motivations for what they do. People who adopt
> such things early on are not doing it for the money, 


Techno-freaks who have to have the latest toy are not a serious indicator of
the potential take-up of any given technology.


> but as more people adopt it the motivation of individuals may change.
> 


At the rate it is being currently adopted, you've got a long wait for any
significant impact.

As a recent article in New Scientist pointed out, the easy way to increase
the adoption of solar panels would be to make it compulsory for all new
builds where the additional cost would be minimal.


> > It was much cheaper to reduce my energy bills by installing proper
> > insulation than by installing solar water-heating,
> 
> Is that insulation of the house or of the hot water pipes?
> 
> 


Cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, lag hot and cold pipes (need doing
again, the original lagging is falling apart). The house was already
double-glazed but I've recently had it replaced, partly for security reasons.
I recently looked again at solar heating, makes even less economic sense as
hopefully I won't stay in this house long enough to see the payback.  On the
other hand a personal wind-turbine that I could take with me could make
sense.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:48:26 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
 wrote this:-


>OK. domestic solar panels have been on the market for at least 20 years to my
>certain knowledge, how many houses as a percentage of the whole have them
>now?


Until the Solartwin design, domestic solar panels were complicated
to install; typically involving a second cylinder, a mains pump,
another header tank, antifreeze, a lot of pipework, thermostats and
mains controllers. The past is not necessarily a good indicator of
the future.


>> Individuals have different motivations for what they do. People who adopt
>> such things early on are not doing it for the money, 
>
>Techno-freaks who have to have the latest toy


A revealing comment. I suspect that the motivations of most people
who install such things are nothing to do with having the latest
toy, but to do with reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.


>As a recent article in New Scientist pointed out, the easy way to increase
>the adoption of solar panels would be to make it compulsory for all new
>builds where the additional cost would be minimal.


I entirely agree. It is an indication of the electricity fixation
within central government that they recently ducked the opportunity
to do precisely this. It would have made a worthwhile reduction in
fossil fuel consumptions and greenhouse gas emissions.


>Cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, lag hot and cold pipes (need doing
>again, the original lagging is falling apart).


Thanks. Of course this is the best first step, as any sensible
advisor will advise.


>The house was already
>double-glazed but I've recently had it replaced, partly for security reasons.


I suspect that double glazing makes even less economic sense than
old fashioned solar water heating. However, there are other reasons
for installing it, as is the case with solar water heating.


>I recently looked again at solar heating, makes even less economic sense as
>hopefully I won't stay in this house long enough to see the payback.  On the
>other hand a personal wind-turbine that I could take with me could make
>sense.


You can take a Solartwin panel with you. Simply disconnect the two
pipes and the pump, then take the whole thing with you.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:32:54 +0100 someone who may be asdf
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote this:-


>On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:16:34 +0100, "Steve Pardoe"
> wrote:
>
>>Despite the tirade launched against my original post, I am not against wind
>>energy, simply against 'inappropriate development', which is by definition
>>'harmful', within Designated Areas such as Green Belt, ASLEVs, ASCVs, SSIs
>>and so on.  Supporting established planning regulations by opposing such a
>>breach of them is not Nimbyism, it's adherence to principle.
>
>But your original post didn't oppose the development on those grounds.
>You were suggesting there might be a serious danger of a blade
>breaking loose and landing on the railway 350m away - which smacks of
>a nimby grasping at straws.


The change in "reason" for opposition is interesting.

Wind turbine blades have failed and bits have been thrown some way.
The blade failure earlier this year at Crystal Rig is an example of
what tends to happen. However, I cannot recall a complete blade
being thrown any distance, despite looking through the anti's data
in some detail several months ago.

All sorts of things are possible, but unlikely. Managing risk is
about working out how likely things are and then not going overboard
on unlikely things.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 01:38:17 GMT, Ben C 
wrote:



>http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/op_swaffhamII.html
>


Extract ...
  
"Swaffham II, Norfolk 

Construction of Swaffham's second wind turbine was completed in July
2003. Standing 85m high, it was the UK's tallest onshore wind turbine
and was built at the request of local residents." <extract ends> 

There *are* no local residents.  <Picture shows wind turbine in
isolated Norfolk agribusiness landscape not a house in sight>.
 

>I know which I'd rather have at the bottom of my garden. 


But you chose not to have either! 

Correct?

DG

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:55:03 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Pardoe"
 wrote this:-


>> I have been clear to outline the sources of
>> information I am using. Perhaps you could tell us where you heard
>> about the E.ON Netz report?
>
>As it happens, I first I heard about it through another campaign,


Another anti-wind farm campaign presumably?


>but that doesn't undermine the validity of the report itself.


I have never said that it does. However, the critique of the report
I mentioned remains.


>Nice try, but that doesn't revoke your quoted claim that it had not been
>discussed.


I'm not going to speak for the authors of the claim. However,
sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the SDC report discuss the issues in detail.
Have you read them? If you have what are your comments on them?


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:48:45 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Pardoe"
 wrote this:-


>My principle argument is as stated above,


Perhaps you could spell it out for those of us that are trying to
keep up. Is your principal argument about Green Belt, ASLEVs, ASCVs,
SSIs and so on, as this posting seems to indicate, or is it about
blade hazard, your first posted objection?


>calling me a nimby is unnecessarily derogatory.


On that I tend to agree with you.


>Do you think that there should be no protection of Designated Areas?


Has anyone called for that in this thread? I can't recall anyone
doing so.

Is the point about Green Belts, ASLEVs, ASCVs, SSIs and so on a
generic one, or one specific to this proposal?


>As it happens, the argument most likely to be a complete show-stopper for
>this planning application is interference with radar at Liverpool Airport,


Have you read Chapter 10 of the SDC report? Here is the first bit

================================================================

10 Aviation and radar

Summary

 Wind turbines can present a hazard to low flying aircraft and may
also affect radar and radio navigation systems

 Early consultation with all statutory authorities can help
successful siting and mitigation decisions to be made

 Planning systems are in place to regulate the development of tall
structures and a preapplication approval system has been established
for wind developers

 International experience suggests the UK has some of the strictest
policies in place on radar and aviation  these must be justified

================================================================

Are you aware of http://www.bwea.com/media/news/adt_trials.html the
first sentence of which is, "Flight trials have commenced to
demonstrate a technical solution that if successful, will be used to
iron out objections to wind farms from the Ministry of Defence
(MOD), National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and individual airport
operators."?




-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:18:03 +0100 someone who may be Derek ^
 wrote this:-


>>http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/op_swaffhamII.html
>>
>
>Extract ...
>  
>"Swaffham II, Norfolk 
>
>Construction of Swaffham's second wind turbine was completed in July
>2003. Standing 85m high, it was the UK's tallest onshore wind turbine
>and was built at the request of local residents." <extract ends> 

>There *are* no local residents.


Here is part of what you left out of your extract, "In autumn 2003
we mailed over 100,000 leaflets to households in Breckland and
surrounding districts asking residents to vote Yes or No to local
wind turbines. The feedback was fantastic with around 89% of the
almost 9,000 respondents voting a big Yes to wind power." I think
this explains their point well enough.

You may argue that not all of these are local, but not everyone
would agree with you.


><Picture shows wind turbine in
>isolated Norfolk agribusiness landscape not a house in sight>.


It does indeed. However, putting Sporle Road into streetmap.co.uk
will give you a good idea of the area. It is worth zooming out to
the 1:50,000 map. From the photograph I suspect that the turbine is
near the junction of Sporle Road with the A47 and that it is perhaps
400m from the nearest houses.

I'll repeat my posting of the URL which shows how the first turbine
in Swaffham relates to the central part of the town
http://www.glendell.co.uk/industry_env_page/1-030.html




-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:36:23 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Pardoe"
 wrote this:-


>> A result of this, "our policy is that we have no policy", approach
>> is the announcement yesterday by Powergen (E.ON) that they want to
>> build a gas fired power station.
>
>The UK's "dash for gas" will, I think, eventually be recognized as one of
>the great strategic follies of the late 20th Century.


And today the BBC has this, "British Gas customers are facing higher
fuel bills after the company said gas and electricity prices would
rise 14%." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4229718.stm

What is needed is for wind electricity to be allowed to reach say
20% of generation. This will take 15 years, perhaps 10 if people
pull their fingers out. The existing renewables, which already work,
need to be expanded as well. That provides time to further develop
things like tidal stream electricity. We can then cope with the
double whammy of the expiration of nuclear electricity and an
over-reliance on gas fired power stations. The latter have a role as
backup stations, as I have explained before.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

The message 
from Derek ^  contains these words:


> Construction of Swaffham's second wind turbine was completed in July
> 2003. Standing 85m high, it was the UK's tallest onshore wind turbine


That's a baby compared with those proposed for Aston.  The Aston
proposals are 132m high, and are planned to be on a ridge 45m above the
river valley...

I think it's time I got busy with PaintShopPro.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> >There's a lot more watts to find for the other 90%. 

> We are not starting from scratch, with a new thing called
> electricity. Rather we are talking about changes to the existing
> system.


I know that.  A bit obvious, isn't it?  However, your proposals seem to
involve replacing all the present generating systems with
"renewables"...


> >Perhaps when a way is found to produce the 90% it can be expanded a
> >little

> See above and my earlier postings. I hope wind will be expanded to
> produce the same as nuclear currently does, around 20%.


Some hope!  0.7% at the moment, double that by the end of 2005(!), and
then roughly 6 times _that_ by 2010.  We'll all have to eat a lot of
baked beans to get generation by wind up to that level!

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

In message 
          David Hansen  wrote:


> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:48:26 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
>  wrote this:-
> 
> > OK. domestic solar panels have been on the market for at least 20 years
> > to my certain knowledge, how many houses as a percentage of the whole
> > have them now?
> 
> Until the Solartwin design, domestic solar panels were complicated to
> install; typically involving a second cylinder, a mains pump, another
> header tank, antifreeze, a lot of pipework, thermostats and mains
> controllers. The past is not necessarily a good indicator of the future.


How many of the general public are aware of the changes?  Until you brought
it to my attention I didn't know of the design.  OK so I haven't exactly been
following it closely recently.


> 
> > > Individuals have different motivations for what they do. People who
> > > adopt such things early on are not doing it for the money, 
> >
> >Techno-freaks who have to have the latest toy
> 
> A revealing comment. 


It reveals that I know a number of techno-freaks, they abound in my industry.
Anything else is purely supposition on your part.


> I suspect that the motivations of most people who install such things are
> nothing to do with having the latest toy, but to do with reducing their
> greenhouse gas emissions.


I would dispute the most at the time I was originally looking, greenhouse gas
emissions hadn't made the public conciousness, but we had had the 'oil
shock'.


> 
> >As a recent article in New Scientist pointed out, the easy way to increase
> >the adoption of solar panels would be to make it compulsory for all new
> >builds where the additional cost would be minimal.
> 
> I entirely agree. It is an indication of the electricity fixation
> within central government that they recently ducked the opportunity
> to do precisely this. It would have made a worthwhile reduction in
> fossil fuel consumptions and greenhouse gas emissions.


Damn! We agree again :-)


> 
> > Cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, lag hot and cold pipes (need
> > doing again, the original lagging is falling apart).
> 
> Thanks. Of course this is the best first step, as any sensible
> advisor will advise.
> 
> > The house was already double-glazed but I've recently had it replaced,
> > partly for security reasons.
> 
> I suspect that double glazing makes even less economic sense than
> old fashioned solar water heating. However, there are other reasons
> for installing it, as is the case with solar water heating.


As I said, security and it makes a positive contribution to the saleability
of the property.  I don't know if solar heating would have any effect as I've
yet to come across a house round here with it on the market to make a
comparison.


> 
> > I recently looked again at solar heating, makes even less economic sense
> > as hopefully I won't stay in this house long enough to see the payback. 
> > On the other hand a personal wind-turbine that I could take with me could
> > make sense.
> 
> You can take a Solartwin panel with you. Simply disconnect the two
> pipes and the pump, then take the whole thing with you.
> 


Things never work out that simple, I hate plumbing with a passion but
electrics are easy.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"David Hansen"  wrote in message
news:a9s2i1ti3o7u4tftvst1795cs6476ak6pr@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:48:45 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Pardoe"
>  wrote this:-
>
> >My principle argument is as stated above,
>
> Perhaps you could spell it out for those of us that are trying to
> keep up. Is your principal argument about Green Belt, ASLEVs, ASCVs,
> SSIs and so on, as this posting seems to indicate, or is it about
> blade hazard, your first posted objection?


My principal argument, as stated in at least one other article in this
thread, is precisely about Green Belt, ASLEVs, ASCVs, SSIs and so on.
However, I posted my rail-related OP to this forum, since general discussion
of town and country planning policy seemed rather Off-Topic.


> >calling me a nimby is unnecessarily derogatory.
>
> On that I tend to agree with you.


Thank you.


> >Do you think that there should be no protection of Designated Areas?
>
> Has anyone called for that in this thread? I can't recall anyone
> doing so.


That was in answer to 'asdf', for the record.

There have been several calls of "Nimby" early in this thread, presumably on
the basis that any objection (or even collateral reference, as my OP was) in
a railway forum to any development anywhere is reflexively frowned on by
people who haven't taken the trouble (as you certainly have) to elucidate
the real issues.

I'm a Parish Councillor in a village which is not only in Green Belt but is
'Washed Over' by it.  I am not ashamed to admit that I would like to support
local and national planning policy to keep the surrounding countryside green
and pleasant, for me and the parishioners I represent and for future
generations.  Our Labour MP, and County and Borough Councillors of all
political stripes are in complete agreement in their public opposition to
this wind farm, so it's more than a parochial (small 'p') matter.  There's
plenty of local infrastructure which we are happy to live with, but adding
wind turbines to an otherwise entirely rural location is unnecessary
ecological vandalism, when alternative sites exist, and I am doing what I
reasonably can to prevent its happening.  Unless you think that there should
be no protection of Designated Areas, I find it quite hard to understand why
someone as obviously well-read and articulate as you should try to undermine
that objective.


> Is the point about Green Belts, ASLEVs, ASCVs, SSIs and so on a
> generic one, or one specific to this proposal?


It is generic to any such assault on Designated Areas, and our Parish
Council has a clear record of opposition to inappropriate development.  On
the other hand, development which will enhance the village or local
infrastructure is generally supported.

You will find that we have been pretty consistent over the years, but one
thing which raises our hackles is when a developer misrepresents his reasons
and arguments, or exaggerates his case to denote 'very special
circumstances' (I'm sure you appreciate the specificity of this term) such
as has (in our opinion) been done by Tegni Cymru Cyf.


> >As it happens, the argument most likely to be a complete show-stopper for
> >this planning application is interference with radar at Liverpool
Airport,
>
> Have you read Chapter 10 of the SDC report? Here is the first bit


<snip quoted text>

You will find that PPS22 (Section 25) is even more specific in this context.

"It is the responsibility of developers to address any potential impacts,
taking account of Civil Aviation Authority, Ministry of Defence and
Department for Transport guidance in relation to radar and aviation, and the
legislative requirements on separation distances, before planning
applications are submitted.  Local Planning Authorities should satisfy
themselves that such issues have been addressed before considering planning
applications."


> Are you aware of http://www.bwea.com/media/news/adt_trials.html the
> first sentence of which is, "Flight trials have commenced to
> demonstrate a technical solution that if successful, will be used to
> iron out objections to wind farms from the Ministry of Defence
> (MOD), National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and individual airport
> operators."?


That's all rather indefinite.  The LPA's Head of Planning and Building
Control told me earlier this week that Liverpool Airport still have serious
concerns, and the LPA is by no means satisfied that the developer has
obtained, or will be able to obtain, the necessary consents.  What Liverpool
Airport have to say in this matter is, to my mind, more authoritative than
any quote from BWEA blurb.

Steve P

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:12:14 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>However, your proposals seem to
>involve replacing all the present generating systems with
>"renewables"...


Those who read the thread will observe otherwise.

I mentioned running gas fired CHP plants, including in homes. I also
mentioned keeping simple gas fired plants as backup. I have also not
spoken of removing the coal fired plants, indeed I spoke of
co-firing biomass.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:58:28 +0100 someone who may be Graeme Wall
 wrote this:-


>How many of the general public are aware of the changes?


The general public are, I suspect, not particularly aware of solar
water heating. A relatively small number of people are aware of it. 

One of the advantages of discussions is that if people make
statements based on out of date information these can be corrected.
Most engineering has moved on in the past 20 years and solar water
heating is no exception.


>> I suspect that the motivations of most people who install such things are
>> nothing to do with having the latest toy, but to do with reducing their
>> greenhouse gas emissions.
>
>I would dispute the most at the time I was originally looking, greenhouse gas
>emissions hadn't made the public conciousness, but we had had the 'oil
>shock'.


I agree, but things are different now and I suspect most people who
install such things now are doing their bit to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions.


>As I said, security and it makes a positive contribution to the saleability
>of the property.  I don't know if solar heating would have any effect as I've
>yet to come across a house round here with it on the market to make a
>comparison.


It could be made a virtue of by the Solicitor (Estate Agent down
south). I doubt if at the moment such an installation would add a
vast amount to the selling price, but it should add something.


>> You can take a Solartwin panel with you. Simply disconnect the two
>> pipes and the pump, then take the whole thing with you.
>
>Things never work out that simple, I hate plumbing with a passion but
>electrics are easy.


The pipes are small bore silicone rubber. Perhaps the easiest thing
to do would be to remove the connections and blank off the tees into
the "normal" water pipes. The pump is connected to the panel by bell
wire. Remove the pump and unbolt the panel. Perhaps a one hour job.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:32:36 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Pardoe"
 wrote this:-


>> Is the point about Green Belts, ASLEVs, ASCVs, SSIs and so on a
>> generic one, or one specific to this proposal?
>
>It is generic to any such assault on Designated Areas, and our Parish
>Council has a clear record of opposition to inappropriate development.


So, is the proposed wind farm in any of these areas, or is that just
part of the generic point?


>> >As it happens, the argument most likely to be a complete show-stopper for
>> >this planning application is interference with radar at Liverpool
>Airport,
>>
>> Have you read Chapter 10 of the SDC report? Here is the first bit
>
><snip quoted text>


I note that you didn't respond to any of the points raised. Do you
agree or disagree with them?


>You will find that PPS22 (Section 25) is even more specific in this context.


I refer you to the last point, " International experience suggests
the UK has some of the strictest policies in place on radar and
aviation  these must be justified"

This is a field where things are changing and where things are done
differently overseas. Those determined to oppose things for other
reasons can cling to out of date points and use them as a crutch to
support their viewpoint, it is something certain people are very
keen on.


>That's all rather indefinite.  The LPA's Head of Planning and Building
>Control told me earlier this week that Liverpool Airport still have serious
>concerns,


I'm sure they do. However, the question is whether these concerns
are justified. Unless they have someone up with the latest
developments in the field (and what happens overseas) then it is
very easy to just say no.

I repeat my question. Have you read Chapter 10 of the SDC report?



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> >However, your proposals seem to
> >involve replacing all the present generating systems with
> >"renewables"...

> Those who read the thread will observe otherwise.


Perhaps I'm reading too much into your posts.


> I mentioned running gas fired CHP plants, including in homes. I also
> mentioned keeping simple gas fired plants as backup. 


And commented on the rising price of gas.  ie. very expensive backup.


> I have also not
> spoken of removing the coal fired plants, indeed I spoke of
> co-firing biomass.


Which will not really help the 0.7% windmill generated power to reduce
our emmisions by any appreciable amount, which is what you want,
presumably.  

The real point is that the contribution to be made by wind power is
minimal in proportion to its visual impact on the countryside.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

"David Hansen"  wrote in message
news:l1k3i1tlnq344fdvfgd00gvqp4q32n52lv@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:32:36 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Pardoe"
>  wrote this:-
>
> >> Is the point about Green Belts, ASLEVs, ASCVs, SSIs and so on a
> >> generic one, or one specific to this proposal?
> >
> >It is generic to any such assault on Designated Areas, and our Parish
> >Council has a clear record of opposition to inappropriate development.
>
> So, is the proposed wind farm in any of these areas, or is that just
> part of the generic point?


All of those Designations (Green Belt, ASLEV, ASCV, two SSIs) apply to this
particular site, and indeed more (a newly formed Regional Park and a
Heritage site,
as it happens) as you would know had you studied the 200+ pages of material
supporting the planning application, as I have.  It really is a very poor
choice of site.

The LPA's officer has confirmed that all these designations apply, and none
of it is disputed by the developer, by the way.


> >> >As it happens, the argument most likely to be a complete show-stopper
for
> >> >this planning application is interference with radar at Liverpool
> >Airport,
> >>
> >> Have you read Chapter 10 of the SDC report? Here is the first bit
> >
> ><snip quoted text>
>
> I note that you didn't respond to any of the points raised. Do you
> agree or disagree with them?


I can't answer all of them, and frankly I'm neither qualified nor inclined
to.


> >You will find that PPS22 (Section 25) is even more specific in this
context.
>
> I refer you to the last point, ". International experience suggests
> the UK has some of the strictest policies in place on radar and
> aviation - these must be justified"
>
> This is a field where things are changing and where things are done
> differently overseas. Those determined to oppose things for other
> reasons can cling to out of date points and use them as a crutch to
> support their viewpoint, it is something certain people are very
> keen on.


I can't be an expert on everything.


> >That's all rather indefinite.  The LPA's Head of Planning and Building
> >Control told me earlier this week that Liverpool Airport still have
serious
> >concerns,
>
> I'm sure they do. However, the question is whether these concerns
> are justified. Unless they have someone up with the latest
> developments in the field (and what happens overseas) then it is
> very easy to just say no.


I will leave it to Liverpool Airport's judgement, rather than yours.


> I repeat my question. Have you read Chapter 10 of the SDC report?


No, but I shall be interested to do so at an early opportunity.  Thank you
for pointing me to it.

Steve P

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:18:03 +0100, Derek ^
 wrote:


>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 01:38:17 GMT, Ben C  
>wrote:

>>http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/op_swaffhamII.html
>>
>
> Extract ...
>  
> "Swaffham II, Norfolk 
>
> Construction of Swaffham's second wind turbine was completed in July
> 2003. Standing 85m high, it was the UK's tallest onshore wind turbine
> and was built at the request of local residents." <extract ends> 
>
> There *are* no local residents.  <Picture shows wind turbine in
> isolated Norfolk agribusiness landscape not a house in sight>. 


http://tinyurl.com/aoe4z 

Should load a Multimap aerial photo of Swaffham with a map overlaying
it where your mouse pointer sits.

Top left corner of the map is the first turbine, showing that its not
far out of the town centre. The overlaying map labels it nicely as
Ecotech Centre. 

http://www.theleys.cambs.sch.uk/school%20info/departments/science/physics/mills/big/11a.jpg

the view from the viewing platform atop the turbine looking towards
the town, showing that its not very far away from the town at all. 

http://www.glendell.co.uk/industry_env_page/1-030.jpg 

the view from the town centre of the turbine. 

I keep meaning to go to the turbine for a tour round... one fine sunny
day maybe. 

The second turbine is a bit further out to the north of the A47,
roughly where the number '83' appears on the overlaying map. 


>>I know which I'd rather have at the bottom of my garden. 
>
>But you chose not to have either! 
>
>Correct? 


There is a 50MW gas turbine and a 30Mw steam turbine exactly 1 mile
away from where I'm sitting now, both feed into the national grid.

On a clear day I can see the Swaffham turbines when walking the dog up
to the next village and back. 

No prizes for guessing where I live! 

Ben

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:23:30 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>> I mentioned running gas fired CHP plants, including in homes. I also
>> mentioned keeping simple gas fired plants as backup. 
>
>And commented on the rising price of gas.  ie. very expensive backup.


Expensive to run. However, they would not run too often or for too
long. Given that the stations have already been built the overall
cost is not great and there are energy advantages in using them this
way.

An alternative form of backup is partly loaded coal fired plants,
which are inefficient.


>> I have also not
>> spoken of removing the coal fired plants, indeed I spoke of
>> co-firing biomass.
>
>Which will not really help the 0.7% windmill generated power


Your arguments would be more convincing if you stopped trolling.


>The real point is that the contribution to be made by wind power is
>minimal in proportion to its visual impact on the countryside.


"The biggest objector to the erection of wind turbines in Norfolk
was me. I had never seen one other than in a photograph bit I knew
that they were wrong for Norfolk. [snip] I watched the erection of
Swaffham 1 and upon its completion I saw a graceful structure which
contrary to my earlier views did not detract from the historic
character of the town or the surrounding area." Principal Planning
Officer of the District Council. Page 47 of the SDC report.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 22:45:52 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Pardoe"
 wrote this:-


>I will leave it to Liverpool Airport's judgement, rather than yours.


It is not my judgement. It is a question raised by the SDC, which
has six and a half pages on the subject.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> >Which will not really help the 0.7% windmill generated power

> Your arguments would be more convincing if you stopped trolling.


Wow!  I'm now trolling!!  The figures were supplied by you.  I have a
viewpoint which doesn't agree with yours - we aren't going to agree.
Live with it.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:10:22 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>Wow!  I'm now trolling!!

Correct.

>The figures were supplied by you.

Correct.

>I have a viewpoint which doesn't agree with yours


That seems to be the case. However, you have not argued your
viewpoint very well.


>- we aren't going to agree.


Possibly.



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> However, you have not argued your
> viewpoint very well.


My viewpoint is very simple: Because of the number of
windfarms/windmills needed to produce a tiny proportion of the nation's
electricity, and each one will need a backup, there is no point in
pouring more concrete over the countryside to erect more.  The figures
you have used so far in *your* argument tend to back up my viewpoint
very nicely.


> >- we aren't going to agree.

> Possibly.


Probably.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:04:15 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>My viewpoint is very simple: Because of the number of
>windfarms/windmills needed to produce a tiny proportion of the nation's
>electricity,


Let's say the number of new wind turbines to get to 20% of UK
electricity is 6000, split between onshore and offshore.

1) Do you think this is a large number?

2) Do you think this is a tiny proportion of generation?


>and each one will need a backup,


The extra backup needed for these turbines is minimal.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> Let's say the number of new wind turbines to get to 20% of UK
> electricity is 6000, split between onshore and offshore.


I don't know how you arrive at only 6000.  I've seen higher figures
quoted, and some calculations to back up the figures, but I didn't make
a note at the time of where I'd seen the articles.


> 1) Do you think this is a large number?

Yes.

> 2) Do you think this is a tiny proportion of generation?


If 6000 were capable of supplying 20% - no, but we're still in the
realms of 0.7% at the moment - and that is a tiny proportion of our
needs.


> >and each one will need a backup,

> The extra backup needed for these turbines is minimal.


I didn't mention "extra".  The windmills only work when it is windy, and
even then only for certain values of "windy", so they need backup to be
available for when they can't do the work for which they have been
constructed.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:23:22 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>I don't know how you arrive at only 6000.


Earlier in the thread.

The point is that I am not proposing generating 20% of electricity
from the wind tomorrow. However, the way the industry is progressing
and the results it has delivered shows that it is possible.


>> 1) Do you think this is a large number?
>
>Yes.


Really. How many coaches are there on the railways I wonder, how
many towns in the UK?


>> The extra backup needed for these turbines is minimal.
>
>I didn't mention "extra".  The windmills only work when it is windy, and
>even then only for certain values of "windy", so they need backup to be
>available for when they can't do the work for which they have been
>constructed.


Already covered earlier in the thread.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> >> 1) Do you think this is a large number?
> >
> >Yes.

> Really. How many coaches are there on the railways I wonder, how
> many towns in the UK?


Totally irrelevant. Railway rolling stock doesn't stick 400ft up into
the air under normal circumstances.

I think we're wasting everybody's time here.  You've no chance of
convincing me that windmills are a) useful, or b) pretty, and I suspect
it would take me even longer to convince you that they're never going to
make a worthwhile contribution to the UK's electricity needs.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:09:27 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>I think we're wasting everybody's time here.

Possibly.

>You've no chance of
>convincing me that windmills are a) useful, or b) pretty,


At last you have accepted that you have a closed mind.


>and I suspect
>it would take me even longer to convince you that they're never going to
>make a worthwhile contribution to the UK's electricity needs.


If you are to do that then you must come up with convincing
arguments, backed up by references.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> At last you have accepted that you have a closed mind.


As far as windmills are concerned, yes.

Naturally you *don't* have a closed mind.  Perhaps you should check your
figures again.

And now, enough of timewasting.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:17:48 GMT, Ben C 
wrote:


>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:18:03 +0100, Derek ^
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 01:38:17 GMT, Ben C  
>>wrote:
>
>>>http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/op_swaffhamII.html
>>>
>>
>> Extract ...
>>  
>> "Swaffham II, Norfolk 
>>
>> Construction of Swaffham's second wind turbine was completed in July
>> 2003. Standing 85m high, it was the UK's tallest onshore wind turbine
>> and was built at the request of local residents." <extract ends> 
>>
>> There *are* no local residents.  <Picture shows wind turbine in
>> isolated Norfolk agribusiness landscape not a house in sight>. 
>
>http://tinyurl.com/aoe4z 
>
>Should load a Multimap aerial photo of Swaffham with a map overlaying
>it where your mouse pointer sits.
>
>Top left corner of the map is the first turbine, showing that its not
>far out of the town centre. The overlaying map labels it nicely as
>Ecotech Centre. 
>
>http://www.theleys.cambs.sch.uk/school%20info/departments/science/physics/mills/big/11a.jpg
>
>the view from the viewing platform atop the turbine looking towards
>the town, showing that its not very far away from the town at all. 
>
>http://www.glendell.co.uk/industry_env_page/1-030.jpg 
>
>the view from the town centre of the turbine. 
>
>I keep meaning to go to the turbine for a tour round... one fine sunny
>day maybe. 
>
>The second turbine is a bit further out to the north of the A47,
>roughly where the number '83' appears on the overlaying map. 
>
>>>I know which I'd rather have at the bottom of my garden. 
>>
>>But you chose not to have either! 
>>
>>Correct? 
>
>There is a 50MW gas turbine and a 30Mw steam turbine exactly 1 mile
>away from where I'm sitting now, both feed into the national grid.


And the relevance to the "Bottom of your garden"  is ...

Anyway, why don't you just tell them to stop pissing about?

Within 36 miles I have Ferrybridge, Eggborough and Drax. Contributing
10,000 MW to the grid.    


>
>On a clear day I can see the Swaffham turbines when walking the dog up
>to the next village and back. 
>
>No prizes for guessing where I live! 


Nowhere special.


>
>Ben


DG

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:41:54 +0100, Derek ^
 wrote:

........

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:34:31 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>Naturally you *don't* have a closed mind.


Of course. That is why I have changed my mind about nuclear
generated electricity.


>Perhaps you should check your figures again.


The figures are an extrapolation of those of the BWEA. If you asked
them they might explain them, but I suspect they know what they are
talking about.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:41:54 +0100 someone who may be Derek ^
 wrote this:-


>Within 36 miles I have Ferrybridge, Eggborough and Drax. Contributing
>10,000 MW to the grid.  


Possibly.

Take a look at the Figure 8 on paper page 22 of the SDC report I
have referred to. It is clear that the large coal plants are now
being run as load following plants, with the base load provided by
nuclear and gas turbine plants. I suspect the coal stations are also
providing some reserves. Both mean they are running inefficiently
and producing more greenhouse gas emissions than they should.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 06:55:31 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:41:54 +0100 someone who may be Derek ^
> wrote this:-
>
>>Within 36 miles I have Ferrybridge, Eggborough and Drax. Contributing
>>10,000 MW to the grid.  
>
>Possibly.
>
>Take a look at the Figure 8 on paper page 22 of the SDC report I
>have referred to. It is clear that the large coal plants are now
>being run as load following plants, with the base load provided by
>nuclear and gas turbine plants. I suspect the coal stations are also
>providing some reserves. Both mean they are running inefficiently
>and producing more greenhouse gas emissions than they should.


When my late father worked for the CEGB he described the GT plants as
"boosters"............. Things have changed somewhat in the last 30
years.

G

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:03:39 +0100 someone who may be Gavin Hamilton
<gavin@hamilton.powernet.co.ukremovethis> wrote this:-


>When my late father worked for the CEGB he described the GT plants as
>"boosters"............. Things have changed somewhat in the last 30
>years.


In an era of cheap gas (and party politicians wanting quick fixes to
acid rain) it made sense, to the generating companies.

However, given that gas is becoming expensive (and will probably
become even more expensive) a different strategy is worth looking
at, especially as partly loaded coal stations emit higher emissions
per kW generated than fully loaded. It may make sense to run the
coal fired stations as base load plants, using co-fired biomass fuel
for the extra fuel. The (simple) gas turbine plants can then be used
for backup and load following. They are particularly suited to
backup due to their ability to start rapidly. They are not as fast
to start as a hydro station, but far better than a coal station.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> That is why I have changed my mind about nuclear
> generated electricity.


Please remind me: in which direction did you jump?
 

> >Perhaps you should check your figures again.

> The figures are an extrapolation of those of the BWEA. If you asked
> them they might explain them, but I suspect they know what they are
> talking about.


I've had a look at their website.  A lot of assumptions and much
pie-in-the-sky, among some simple basic facts which are just that,
facts.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:26:32 +0100 someone who may be David Jackson
 wrote this:-


>Please remind me: in which direction did you jump?


I didn't jump.

I did realise that the anti arguments had more merit than I thought.
That was a slow realisation.


>I've had a look at their website.  A lot of assumptions and much
>pie-in-the-sky,


Proof by assertion again.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

The message 
from David Hansen  contains these words:


> I did realise that the anti arguments had more merit than I thought.


I feel the same about windmills.


> That was a slow realisation.


Not in my case.  I visited the Swaffham establishment and was convinced
by the information available there.
 

> >I've had a look at their website.  A lot of assumptions and much
> >pie-in-the-sky,

> Proof by assertion again.


I thought that about their website, too.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

DERWENT Re: Windfarms and railways - blade hazard?
 Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:25:50 +0100, "Bevan Price"
<mynameATTTTfreeukDOTTTcom> 



>
>So you will be first to volunteer to have a wind turbine in your garden ? My 
>own objection is not to wind turbines in principle, but to the blighting of 
>pleasant countryside locations by these, or other, industrial structures. 
>Start by sticking them between skyscapers in London and other cities.
>


A more reasoned response would be "Put them out at sea - over the
horizon."

PRAR
-- 
<http://www.i.am/prar/> and <http://prar.fotopic.net/>
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
 - If you must email me use the Reply to address and not prar@deadspam.com

In article ,
PRAR   wrote:

>DERWENT Re: Windfarms and railways - blade hazard?
> Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:25:50 +0100, "Bevan Price"
><mynameATTTTfreeukDOTTTcom> 
>>
>>So you will be first to volunteer to have a wind turbine in your garden ? My 


As I've said before in this thread - I intend /paying/ ~1000 UKP to
have a wind turbine in my garden, probably next spring (need the
shed that the base will attach to be built first..). And I /love/
having the view over the four (now) wind farms that I can see from the
hill above my house.


>A more reasoned response would be "Put them out at sea - over the
>horizon."


... and wait for the complaints from the NIMBY subset of the sailing
world. 

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)