Thanks, an interesting topic. I remember the endless campaigns ranting about how wind farms would ruin Scotland's tourist industry, yet last year and this would seem again to break all records. In all the years I've lived and worked in the Scottish countryside, I've seen more birds of prey killed by gamekeepers and automobiles than anything else. There is always an outcry when a bird of prey is found poisoned, or killed on the rare occasion, by a wind turbine blade but never the same when one is found mangled at the roadside. I used to call the road that ran to and from my last home, "the road of death", because of the amount of dead wildlife left strewn on it, deer, fox, buzzards, etc etc. all caused by cars. Given the chioce, Dounreay is probably better shadowed by wind turbines than by radiation.
Bad bad things are going on in Norway these days. Please spread the word.
- Thread starter Skaukraft
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
If the co2 goes up the atmosphere expands.
Deforestation (or even ripping up of grasslands)leads to bare earth, the sun then evapourates the water. Farmers take water from streams and sprincke on bare earth, all that water is going somewhere and its not into the sea. All this leads to a greater ammount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Even burning wood releases water. Heated homes tumble driers etc all increace water vapour and therefore turbulance. The more water vapor in the atmosphere means higher temperatures, more evapouratiin and therefore more water vapour.
Oh, I agree entirely, which is why I have taken pains to say that based on the evidence that I have seen what I say is my opinion. However, control of cyclic systems is my field - it just so happens this is a very complex cyclic system with a very large number of inputs and reactions
Oh, I agree entirely, which is why I have taken pains to say that based on the evidence that I have seen what I say is my opinion. However, control of cyclic systems is my field - it just so happens this is a very complex cyclic system with a very large number of inputs and reactions
This, and your previous post are both very valid points.
Some people don't like wind turbines, in the same way some people don't like sea eagles,
The climate is changing, anyone can see that, and it is also good that efforts are being made to reduce the amount of man made pollutants, but it is wrong without proper fact checking, to make claims to further any "personal" agenda. Apparently wind farms were going ruin the Scottish economy, but the same scaremongers were noticeably absent in warning us all about "Sir" Fred Goodwin and his banking antics. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
It’s actually more symbiotic than that. Yes, moisture evaporates into the atmosphere the way you describe but th normal cycle is for it to return as rain, fog, due, etc. when it recondenses (That bare earth scenario also leads to more dust airborne dust particles for it to condense around) So Yes, while the higher humidity will lead to higher temperatures, those temperatures themselves lead to higher levels as the atmosphere doesn’t cool to dew point as often.
I’m like most people I suspect when I say I find the modern turbines to be an eyesore. That said, they’re like pretty much everything else man made, we get used to them as they proliferate so I can’t imagine them ruining Scotland’s tourism any more than things like tv antennas, satellite dishes, etc. did back when they were the common signs of change. For that matter, at one time even the tour busses or cars would have probably been thought of as a noisy eyesore.
The first turbine I saw was back in the early 80’s, just south of Malmö ( Skania, Sweden)
It was experimental, but full scale and full functioning.
I went there to have a good look, and remember the sound. Sounded a bit scary, like a ghost.
Apparently the metallic lightning tape had detached tiny bit I read later in the newspaper.
Interesting with the CO2 and water vapour.
Just before the era when the coal and oil fields were formed, I wonder how conditions were on earth. Huge amounts of carbonhydrates and carbon were ’ locked’ in after that era.
It was experimental, but full scale and full functioning.
I went there to have a good look, and remember the sound. Sounded a bit scary, like a ghost.
Apparently the metallic lightning tape had detached tiny bit I read later in the newspaper.
Interesting with the CO2 and water vapour.
Just before the era when the coal and oil fields were formed, I wonder how conditions were on earth. Huge amounts of carbonhydrates and carbon were ’ locked’ in after that era.
Last edited:
Im going to wait a thousand years and see what happens then.
You might want to watch this.You may choose to believe that Woody girl, and you are entitled to, but there is plenty of evidence that suggests we would be exactly where we are now without man's involvement. This 'warming' period (and remember, we are still in a technical ice age as far as the world is concerned) is exactly on queue based on the historic temperatures of the globe. We 'may' have had a slight influence and, by deforestation etc we may be changing how the natural cycle of things will occur, but we are unlikely to have caused it. People that want you to believe it only publish post 1880 data - and that shows a 1 degree C increase in temperature - but the earth was a lot warmer 5,000 years ago, 125,000 years ago and 330,000 years ago …
And, to be honest, I don't trust any research that is funded by Government or large corporate organisations with a financial interest (I have been paid to do Government research and know how it is manipulated
There is actually a ban in place for building turbines in the UK. Didn't know that. Cameron's makeshift government brought it in and May advanced the date. A great step forwards towards a zero carbon economy. Leadership, eh? Seems these people are happy to do anything, appease anyone to get themselves elected.
Seems to be an incorrect source you got it from! Toronto Star or another leftie disinfo place?
https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/tech/planning-permission-for-wind-turbines/
Wikipee, if trusted, says that in fact UK is one of the foremost countries in utilising the wind.
18-19% of electricity is now generated by wind, and several large windfarms are approved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom
It is difficult for UK to get ’green electricity’, as the best and easiest source, hydro, is not possible to be expanded much.
https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/tech/planning-permission-for-wind-turbines/
Wikipee, if trusted, says that in fact UK is one of the foremost countries in utilising the wind.
18-19% of electricity is now generated by wind, and several large windfarms are approved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom
It is difficult for UK to get ’green electricity’, as the best and easiest source, hydro, is not possible to be expanded much.
Last edited:
Then to make our life more interesting, we have to distinguish between Carbon Neutral and Renewable.
And think of the whole chain of production, transport, utilisation of fields (where food can be grown) and so on.
And think of the whole chain of production, transport, utilisation of fields (where food can be grown) and so on.
Not doubting the Guardian is an outlet for leftie misinformation, Janne. Their spelling, for starters, is atrocious 
. And their grammar, much like my own mid-Atlantic mess, has become totally haywire in the past two years.
But ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/30/tories-urge-lifting-off-onshore-windfarm-ban
Another interesting thing about power plants is that they can't be placed too far from their intended consumer base. Electricity cables kind of leak. So, the idea that all of the US energy needs could be supplied by a 300 square miles of solar panels in the Nevada desert, sadly sucks. Sticking them on the roof of all domestic residences sounds like a good idea too, but an expensive pest when it comes to replacing your asphalt roof shingles every 15 years! Come to think of it, I guess asphalt will get pretty rare too at some point, if fossil fuels are dropped. Back to thatch and Cedar
Brenton Lea used to design these amazing cedar shake roofs in Vancouver, really thick, like thatch, from metre long laths. One got renovated about five years ago, near Jericho, but I can't find any pictures of that in process. Gorgeous it is. Readily affordable too, I'd imagine.
. And their grammar, much like my own mid-Atlantic mess, has become totally haywire in the past two years.But ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/30/tories-urge-lifting-off-onshore-windfarm-ban
Another interesting thing about power plants is that they can't be placed too far from their intended consumer base. Electricity cables kind of leak
. So, the idea that all of the US energy needs could be supplied by a 300 square miles of solar panels in the Nevada desert, sadly sucks. Sticking them on the roof of all domestic residences sounds like a good idea too, but an expensive pest when it comes to replacing your asphalt roof shingles every 15 years! Come to think of it, I guess asphalt will get pretty rare too at some point, if fossil fuels are dropped. Back to thatch and Cedar
Brenton Lea used to design these amazing cedar shake roofs in Vancouver, really thick, like thatch, from metre long laths. One got renovated about five years ago, near Jericho, but I can't find any pictures of that in process. Gorgeous it is. Readily affordable too, I'd imagine.
Last edited:
The Conservatives cut down on the subsidies the article says. Not a ban.
Why should the tax payer pay to install them, then pay extra to use the electricity? ( is still costing more to produce)
It is more fair you only pay once, when you use it.
In fact, several windfarms were approved the last couple of years, and will go ongrid within a year or two.
Why should the tax payer pay to install them, then pay extra to use the electricity? ( is still costing more to produce)
It is more fair you only pay once, when you use it.
In fact, several windfarms were approved the last couple of years, and will go ongrid within a year or two.
To the Oiginal Poster, I say:
Be happy to lose a few eagles and a flock of seagulls or two.
Your alternatives are:
opening oil and gas fields outside Lofoten
Building a nuclear powerplant
Buying more electricity/power from Europe.
I think that last option is in the works as they have approved new powerlines between Norway and EU?
If correct, that electricity is a mixed bag of nuclear, coal, gas, hydro, solar, wind. So technically speaking, Norway is preferring to push the problems outside the own borders?
As you know, Norway is huge in recycling. Most stuff is trucked to Sweden to be recycled.
I learned that when I started restiring our old house there, I asked the recycling company where the stuff goes, and got the answer that the destination is Sweden because Norway does not want to expand the incineration and deposition due to environment concerns.
( I still love Norway though!)
Edit: maybe a solution?
A couple of those on the coast, specially in the Arctic where solar is a no good option ?
https://interestingengineering.com/worlds-first-floating-nuclear-power-plant-starts-work-in-russia
Be happy to lose a few eagles and a flock of seagulls or two.
Your alternatives are:
opening oil and gas fields outside Lofoten
Building a nuclear powerplant
Buying more electricity/power from Europe.
I think that last option is in the works as they have approved new powerlines between Norway and EU?
If correct, that electricity is a mixed bag of nuclear, coal, gas, hydro, solar, wind. So technically speaking, Norway is preferring to push the problems outside the own borders?
As you know, Norway is huge in recycling. Most stuff is trucked to Sweden to be recycled.
I learned that when I started restiring our old house there, I asked the recycling company where the stuff goes, and got the answer that the destination is Sweden because Norway does not want to expand the incineration and deposition due to environment concerns.
( I still love Norway though!)
Edit: maybe a solution?
A couple of those on the coast, specially in the Arctic where solar is a no good option ?
https://interestingengineering.com/worlds-first-floating-nuclear-power-plant-starts-work-in-russia
Last edited:
You got me wondering now who built the national grid. I'd always assumed it was the UK government with tax pounds. Let's first find out who built Hinkley Point and work back from there.
EDIT ... OK, Hinkley Point C was state-financed, but by China and France. (I think I knew this). The nuclear plants built in the 50s and 60s were all paid for by the state, I think, but actually designed, constructed etc. by private consortiums ... that's what it looks like, but more hunting might make things clearer (or more murky).
Last edited: