Weather
Southampton's giant turbines plan blown out (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
|
|
|
|
Southampton's giant turbines plan blown out
12:20pm Wednesday 5th November 2008
AMBITIOUS plans to build giant wind turbines in Southampton have stalled because city councillors fear a public outcry, the Daily Echo can reveal.
At least five potential wind turbine locations around the city have been identified since the council enthusiastically announced its plans late last year.
The secret sites – none of which are in residential areas – lie on the outskirts of the city and were chosen by the Government-backed Partnership for Renewables (PfR), a branch of the Carbon Trust.
But the council’s Tory Cabinet has now gone back to the drawing board to look at other less eye-catching – and controversial – renewable energy schemes.
Environmental campaigners yesterday said it was a major blow to Southampton’s eco-credentials and bid to become one of Britain’s greenest cities.
The Cabinet was later this month due to agree to the “general principal” of building the enormous 125-metre turbines – more than twice the height of the Civic Centre clock tower – at windy spots in the city.
Under the plan, the £2m structures – which would have each powered more than 1,000 homes – were to be integral to the city’s vision to embrace low carbon technology.
Despite almost a year’s research by PfR engineers, who screened all of the council’s land assets and carried out preliminary surveys of the most promising spots, the Cabinet has now backed out of the decision.
Sources inside the Civic Centre described the back down as “political” because wind turbines remain unpopular with some sections of the public.
Friends of the Earth Southampton spokesman Chris Bluemel said: “It’s very disappointing, but not really surprising because this administration has a history of making green announcements that they later turn their back on.
“It was not long ago they announced their eco-loan scheme to help people improve the energy efficiency of their homes and that has never happened.
“One would have presumed that they would have already looked at all their options. It seems they are trying to avoid possible public opposition, but our viewis that the visual argument is greatly exaggerated – I mean coal-fired power stations are not exactly pretty.”
Council chiefs now want to investigate other renewable energy sources with neighbouring local authorities in South Hampshire.
As revealed by the Daily Echo last week, the council is in secret talks with at least two energy firms about building a wood-fired power plant in Southampton’s docks.
The ten megawatt biomass plant would burn millions of tonnes of wood chip and rise up on vacant port land off Western Avenue, in the Western Docks.
The electricitywill be sold by the energy firm to a major business or plugged into the NationalGrid,while any generated heatwill be added to the city’s district heating scheme.
However, under the turbine scheme, power would have been sold back to the council at a reduced rate or fed into the National Grid to help council coffers.
It’s understood a single turbine, that could have been erected by 2011, would have raised about £50,000 per year for the council to offset energy bills for local residents.
A spokesman for PfR, which has already developed similar turbine plans in Reading and Oxford, said: “The work we’ve carried out so far with Southampton City Council has shown that there are potential wind turbine locations around the city which are worthy of further investigation.”
The British Wind Energy Association’s communications director Charles Anglin said the turbine scheme was an important opportunity for the council to contribute to the fight against climate change.
“Councils are major landowners and they have an opportunity not to just talk about tackling climate change, but tomake a real difference,” he said.
Councillor Matt Dean, Cabinet membner for environment and transport, said the council remained committed to exploring and using alternative forms of energy in the city, but refused to say when a final decision on the future of the turbine scheme would be made.
“Wind power is one of the options under investigation, but other sustainable power opportunities, like biomass for example, may be more suitable for the urban environment," he said.
“The council is keen to look at these in the context of wider sustainable energy opportunities being looked at by the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) – a partnership of local authorities in South Hampshire dedicated to sustainable, economic-led growth and improving prosperity and the quality of life for everyone who lives, works and spends their leisure time in South Hampshire.
“We will continue to investigate opportunities for embracing wind power and other possible energy options, but at this time it is too early to say when these will be taken forward.”
See today's Daily Echo for the full story
More News stories
- Motorists set for year of misery as bridge closes
- Road closed after serious accident
- Man set fire to student dressed as a sheep
- Naked rambler jailed again
- 'Tacky' city market slammed by retailers
- Surf competition to be held at artificial reef
- Worker crushed to death at Rose Bowl
- Wartime boats saved from scrapheap
- Family jump from house blaze
- NXP site still under a cloud
Your Say YourEcho
hulla baloo, southampton says...
10:52am Wed 5 Nov 08
Not only that, they are an awful and unsightly blot on the landscape.
Andy Locks Heath, says...
11:32am Wed 5 Nov 08
Spend the money on FGD plants and carbon capture if you have to, but don't waste it on these things.
TheTruthIknow, Southampton says...
11:45am Wed 5 Nov 08
Adrian Smith, Planet Earth says...
11:45am Wed 5 Nov 08
What like the very real outcry about fluoride in the water, rather than this pie in the sky so called green initiative.
Bright Spark, Stubbington says...
12:06pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Family Man, Bitterne says...
12:09pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Condor Man, Southampton says...
12:13pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Ian24, Portswood says...
1:09pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Just because the political landscape is the same unaltered freeloading fest it doesn't mean the sharp edge of industry is.
You don't need policians other than to "hang on" for taking the credit for projects to improve.
All the politicians do is waste money on more and more reports and investigations while patting themselves and their mates on the back.
Just compare the evolution of the jet engines that powered the first Boeing 747 flight across the atlantic in 1970 which produced approximately 24,000lbs of thrust compared to the 93,000lbs each today, that's a startling increase of almost 400%. Coupled with the reduction in fuel consumption and other emissions which have been cut you can see clearly how things have improved.
Things will improve without politicians sticking their noses in and wasting our taxes.
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
1:18pm Wed 5 Nov 08
"Common sense prevails. I fail to see how these are viable. and many reports have suggested that they do not even cover their installation costs, let alone provide enough energy to power homes.
Not only that, they are an awful and unsightly blot on the landscape."
Engineer says:
The financial payback time is dependent on the energy markets. Since energy prices have gone up and will also become less secure, then renewables become cost effective and payback quicker.
Energy payback times for large turbines are as good or better than coal, oil, gas etc.
The visual impact is subjective.
Roads are an unsightly blot on the landscape and impose a net increase in carbon emissions without providing energy.
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
1:25pm Wed 5 Nov 08
"Dr David Bellamy has said that wind turbines are totally inefficient. We'd be better off burning rubbish at the Marchwood incinerator for the electricity return we'd get."
And what does Bellamy know about the engineering and science of wind turbines?
Would you employ a plumber to make a cabinet?
Or employ a software engineer to design a dam?
Re: Incinerator...
If you burn waste that was produced from fossil fuels, you introduce CO2 to the atmosphere that is additional to the natural carbon cycle.
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
1:33pm Wed 5 Nov 08
"Do these politicians in Southampton not realise that the simple uninterrupted evolution of technology will in itself achieve these cuts and improvements and more as set out in PUSH."
Engineer said:
Do you have an historical example where better technology has resulted in humans reducing their impact?
If so why do we have a problem now?
Ian24 said
"Just compare the evolution of the jet engines that powered the first Boeing 747 flight across the atlantic in 1970 which produced approximately 24,000lbs of thrust compared to the 93,000lbs each today, that's a startling increase of almost 400%. Coupled with the reduction in fuel consumption and other emissions which have been cut you can see clearly how things have improved."
Engineer said:
OK. So have emissions actually dropped because the 747 is more efficient?
The answer is no. Why?
Because companies naturally want to expand and make a profit.
Technology will not solve the problem, humans and their habits need to do that and that is achieved through education and legislation. eg. in you example less flying.
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
1:41pm Wed 5 Nov 08
We need high tech solar panels, wind turbines and other clean tech. We need to cut back on the old fossil fuel based technologies.
Making fossil fuel based tech will not in the long term achieve the carbon cuts we need, because of economic and population growth.
Overall some activities will not be compatible with a long term sustainable life.
Finlay, Des Moines Iowa says...
1:48pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Condor Man wrote:Dr Bellamy is right in saying that. Those that have researched wind technology say the same. Burning rubbish creates pollution but equally no better way has been suggested to deal with it ... Yet
Dr David Bellamy has said that wind turbines are totally inefficient. We'd be better off burning rubbish at the Marchwood incinerator for the electricity return we'd get.
Take a look at the technical info that they come with as in electricity is generated at wind speed cubed thus 30mph winds generate 27kW so on and so forth.
27kW is Jack and sure it will serve a zillion homes with leccy but drop the wind speed then say the same thing and again for how long?
Check your weather forecasts where wind speeds wee high enough and protracted enough to generate any quantity of tangible leccy. Sadly the country although all wind and pi55 you dont have enough wind.
There are only a handful of places in Scotland and sea based WT's around the UK that are actually profitable.
These WT's are political megaliths to scream at the society that 'WE ARE GREEN'.
To put it in perspective in North Daota there is a huge wind farm and that sits on the edge of Lake Superior - Often many are closed down cos there is not enough wind. I was up there recently and it was a calm warm day not enough wind to puff out a candle flame and a $Bn worth of wind turbines glistening in the sun.
Id wager the propose wind farm on the IoW doesnt get the necessary wind they need either. Soton can forget it cos the powerful winds across the Atlantic hit the IoW first and shelters Soton areas. Chichester does not get that 'shield' and you can see what happens down there as a consequence.
Miles Sway, Scotland says...
1:51pm Wed 5 Nov 08
I agree, we cannot continue to blunder on indifferently and leave the environment to someone else.
Having said that where is all the money for "green" taxes going? We see politicians et al spouting off and doing f.all in practise - why is there no requirenment for all new homes to have solar panels? why are there no tax breaks for domestic power turbines or encouragement towards solar power etc?
The answer, maybe cynical, but if we could all harvest free, green power how does the govt tax us on it?
Andy Locks Heath, says...
1:54pm Wed 5 Nov 08
goard, Southampton says...
2:00pm Wed 5 Nov 08
goard
Andy Locks Heath, says...
2:01pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Yes. Check out the Industrial Revolution and look at the pollution. Check out the smog in London that killed hundreds as late as the 1950s. All gone now. Any idea why Engineer?
Engineer mentioned the necessary carbon cuts (despite forgetting nuclear power). As an engineer where is your evidence that the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has led to global warming? Is is not equally true that we have had ice ages in the past when there has been more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (The answer is yes by the way)
Where are you an engineer - Kwik-Fit?
Finlay, Des Moines Iowa says...
2:15pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Andy Locks Heath wrote:Thank you - You have restored my faith in the real beliefs of those bamboozled by this 'Green' rhetoric.
Engineer said to Ian "Do you have an historical example where better technology has resulted in humans reducing their impact?" Yes. Check out the Industrial Revolution and look at the pollution. Check out the smog in London that killed hundreds as late as the 1950s. All gone now. Any idea why Engineer? Engineer mentioned the necessary carbon cuts (despite forgetting nuclear power). As an engineer where is your evidence that the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has led to global warming? Is is not equally true that we have had ice ages in the past when there has been more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (The answer is yes by the way) Where are you an engineer - Kwik-Fit?
There is no scientific evidence to show there is an unusual rise in CO2 levels and in fact the globe is not warming but cooling as science has shown as well as historic weather patterns.
If it costs a $trillion to replace defunct power stations, a burden of the government, wouldnt it be easier to tell the people a fairy story about 'global warming' and nasty CO2 increases so they use less power, source/supplement their own consumption with PV and EVT technologies at the cost bourne to them so that the power stns have to work less hence last til the next govt gets handed the problems and worn out power generators?
PV foils are fast improving and nanotechnology is at a level where it could become viable but unless you sail the good ship britain south to 35o north then forget it for PV's at his stage. Too much money for too little leccy and new batteries every 4 years - Where do the wasted ones end up?
RJG, Bitterne Park says...
2:36pm Wed 5 Nov 08
stuartjebbitt, Eastleigh says...
2:37pm Wed 5 Nov 08
People I know waste masses of power, thats where the problem lies - lights on in empty rooms and heating left on all day while people aren't even there.
I only use the minimum amount of power that I actually need and benefit from the subsequent low bills.
Miles Sway, Scotland says...
2:42pm Wed 5 Nov 08
The UK's problem is it's energy needs are largely supplied from abroad and UK can therefore be held to ransom.
UK needs to be able to sustain itself and the drawbacks to renewable sources mean the only really viable method is Nuclear (and as Andy mentioned earlier much is supplied from France - I wonder if the Anti-Nulear mob turn their leccie off?)
It'd be lovely if everything was green, natural etc, but it 's simply never going to hasppen.
Miles Sway, Scotland says...
2:55pm Wed 5 Nov 08
stuartjebbitt wrote:Therein lies much of the problem Stuart, people simply can't be bothered enough to take the small steps that make a difference.
We'll all be dead, but at least the view won't be spoiled (if it's not already under water from the melted poles). People I know waste masses of power, thats where the problem lies - lights on in empty rooms and heating left on all day while people aren't even there. I only use the minimum amount of power that I actually need and benefit from the subsequent low bills.
StuRomseySaint, North Baddesley, not Romsey says...
3:25pm Wed 5 Nov 08
A couple of windmills, so what, Amsterdam have lots of them, they can be fun to watch when stoned.
Bartonian, Chandler's Ford says...
3:32pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Andy Locks Heath wrote:I think you will find that this is a government initiative, inspired by the green movement and the EU. they are passing the bill of installing the grid for these things onto the taxpayer and this will run into billions of pounds. Be prepared to see the lights begin to go out over the next ten years, as a number of our power stations are due for de-commissioning. Don't blame the councils, they are just doing what they are told to do from a goverment that has no idea on our future energy needs.
Agreed, HB. I wonder how many of the green hypocrites in our councils would agree to have their homes powered by these - and only these - unreliable monstrosities? Within one winter they would be very cold, poor, miserable and possibly dead, and that is the fate they want the rest of us to share. Spend the money on FGD plants and carbon capture if you have to, but don't waste it on these things.
Finlay, Des Moines Iowa says...
3:39pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Miles Sway wrote:Nuclear Power although a taboo subject it is the ONLY way to go to erect nuclear power plants. They are clean and efficient. Those that know how they work and the consequences of the spent fuel rods will eagerly say that this is the way forward. One barrel of nuclear waste = 50 sq miles of coal 5lag as seen on the green green grass of wales (well grey actually). No roads blocked with coal trucks delivering fuel - no vast numbers of people to keep the power coming -
Finlay, there may or may not be another looming iceage due to global warming, and it may or may not be entirely man-made if/when it happens - there are simply too many differing views with vested interests on both sides of the argument. The UK's problem is it's energy needs are largely supplied from abroad and UK can therefore be held to ransom. UK needs to be able to sustain itself and the drawbacks to renewable sources mean the only really viable method is Nuclear (and as Andy mentioned earlier much is supplied from France - I wonder if the Anti-Nulear mob turn their leccie off?) It'd be lovely if everything was green, natural etc, but it 's simply never going to hasppen.
It is the only way that that country will solve its energy needs.
Your are right when you say France is 90% nuclear. I have stayed close to a power station in the Loire valley and I never knew it was there until it was pointed out four days into my stay. No air pollution, no gridlocked rail and road links just the gentle presence of a discretely hidden nuclear power plant on the banks of the Loire.
This is a subject I specialize in and have researched a great deal on all avenues and nuclear is by far the cleanest greenest way forward and all those scaremongerers and mudslingers know little if anything of nuclear power.
As far as disasters are concerned, Long Island, Chernobyl and others are a result of worn, dated and defunct units failing - It is now a very strictly controlled industry worldwide and very very little chance of it recurring to these scales again. Ask France they will confirm that.
southy, redbridge says...
3:45pm Wed 5 Nov 08
St Retford, Manchester says...
3:46pm Wed 5 Nov 08
O, and David Bellamy is an idiot. He had a debate about global warming with the campaigner George Monbiot and Monbiot absolutely destroyed each and every one of his points.
To say global warming isn't happening and isn't a threat to the surival of the human race is to ignore the consensus of every credible scientist practicing today.
Finlay, Des Moines Iowa says...
3:55pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Who would you believe?
...is to ignore the consensus of every credible scientist practicing today.
So St Retford, Manchester, name one such 'credible' scientist who believes this to be true then.
If there are any scientists or academics in this field reading these postings lets hear your point of view on this subject.
Please dont just be an armchair pundit you must have studied and worked in this arena of sustainable green issues.
southy, redbridge says...
3:57pm Wed 5 Nov 08
St Retford wrote:oh by the way bellamy is more than a dr,the only reason it look that way was because g.monbiot would not answer any of bellamy questions about the sun and how it works.
I think windfarms look absolutely beautiful. Anyone that has a problem with them should be sentenced to work in a coal mine for a year and see how they like the alternative.
O, and David Bellamy is an idiot. He had a debate about global warming with the campaigner George Monbiot and Monbiot absolutely destroyed each and every one of his points.
To say global warming isn't happening and isn't a threat to the surival of the human race is to ignore the consensus of every credible scientist practicing today.
and if you really look into it deeply global warming is not man made its some thing that happens every so often in the earth history.
also you need to read the so called scintist who are saying it due to man not one is a true 100% scientist they are only the lower form a tectical scientist and never have the full facts whats going on
Miles Sway, Scotland says...
4:07pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Can we stop it (should we try?) is the question - my guess is no, and that is a guess, I'm no scientist.
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
4:12pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Finlay wrote:Finlay said:
Condor Man wrote:Dr Bellamy is right in saying that. Those that have researched wind technology say the same. Burning rubbish creates pollution but equally no better way has been suggested to deal with it ... Yet
Dr David Bellamy has said that wind turbines are totally inefficient. We'd be better off burning rubbish at the Marchwood incinerator for the electricity return we'd get.
Take a look at the technical info that they come with as in electricity is generated at wind speed cubed thus 30mph winds generate 27kW so on and so forth.
27kW is Jack and sure it will serve a zillion homes with leccy but drop the wind speed then say the same thing and again for how long?
Check your weather forecasts where wind speeds wee high enough and protracted enough to generate any quantity of tangible leccy. Sadly the country although all wind and pi55 you dont have enough wind.
There are only a handful of places in Scotland and sea based WT's around the UK that are actually profitable.
These WT's are political megaliths to scream at the society that 'WE ARE GREEN'.
To put it in perspective in North Daota there is a huge wind farm and that sits on the edge of Lake Superior - Often many are closed down cos there is not enough wind. I was up there recently and it was a calm warm day not enough wind to puff out a candle flame and a $Bn worth of wind turbines glistening in the sun.
Id wager the propose wind farm on the IoW doesnt get the necessary wind they need either. Soton can forget it cos the powerful winds across the Atlantic hit the IoW first and shelters Soton areas. Chichester does not get that 'shield' and you can see what happens down there as a consequence.
"Dr Bellamy is right in saying that. Those that have researched wind technology say the same. Burning rubbish creates pollution but equally no better way has been suggested to deal with it ... Yet"
Engineer says:
And that peer reviewed research would be?
The alternative to burning rubbish is to reduce the amount of it, eg. consume less and where consumption is unavoidable, to use materials that can be recycled or that are bio-degradable.
Finlay said:
"Take a look at the technical info that they come with as in electricity is generated at wind speed cubed thus 30mph winds generate 27kW so on and so forth.
27kW is Jack and sure it will serve a zillion homes with leccy but drop the wind speed then say the same thing and again for how long?"
Engineer says:
Maybe you should do some research Finlay.
Most commercial large utility scale turbines are in the two 2MW to 3MW capacity range, Offshore turbines are heading upwards to 7.5MW (you would of course know that if is an American company that is developing that large turbine).
Actually scientists and engineers are developing technology to deal with wind speed variation, this includes new turbine designs and control systems, load leveling systems, the smart grid and energy storage systems such as Vanadium Redox flow batteries, Ultrabatteries, CAES, flywheel energy storage etc.
Finlay said:
"These WT's are political megaliths to scream at the society that 'WE ARE GREEN'.
To put it in perspective in North Daota there is a huge wind farm and that sits on the edge of Lake Superior - Often many are closed down cos there is not enough wind. I was up there recently and it was a calm warm day not enough wind to puff out a candle flame and a $Bn worth of wind turbines glistening in the sun."
Engineer says:
Typical energy payback ratios:
1. Coal - between 7 and 34
2. Gas - between 5 and 26
4. Wind - between 11 and 30
eg. despite the wind variability, wind turbines produce some 11 to 30 times more energy than used to make, maintain and decommission them.
Finlay said:
"Id wager the propose wind farm on the IoW doesnt get the necessary wind they need either. Soton can forget it cos the powerful winds across the Atlantic hit the IoW first and shelters Soton areas. Chichester does not get that 'shield' and you can see what happens down there as a consequence."
And your source of knowledge and data is based on what?
southy, redbridge says...
4:12pm Wed 5 Nov 08
timjim, feeding the ducks at riverside park says...
4:13pm Wed 5 Nov 08
OSPREYSAINT, Southampton says...
4:13pm Wed 5 Nov 08
southy, redbridge says...
4:21pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
4:22pm Wed 5 Nov 08
"Having said that where is all the money for "green" taxes going? We see politicians et al spouting off and doing f.all in practise - why is there no requirenment for all new homes to have solar panels? why are there no tax breaks for domestic power turbines or encouragement towards solar power etc?
The answer, maybe cynical, but if we could all harvest free, green power how does the govt tax us on it? "
Engineer says:
Our government has been slow IMO.
They are introducing feed-in tariffs which have been available in other countries for a while.
On the homes and buildings front, there are new standards being introduced, but honestly you'll probably find it is the big developers that have influenced the government and slowed the introduction.
I can't remember the date but so called 'zero' carbon new home standards are to be introduced in a few years time.
Do a search for BREEAM, i think they are responsible for the new standard.
St Retford, Manchester says...
4:31pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Finlay wrote:Well I suggest you start by having a look at the work of the Tyndall Centre (google it). They've just produced a report outlining how warming at the ice caps can only be a man-made phenomenom because the variations of temperature we're witnessing fall way outside anything that would occur naturally.
The difference between science and news reports aka journalese is science is how it actully is and journalese is how they would like you believe it is. When a scientist reports inaccurate findings he is alienated and their career usually ends. Newspapers offer a throw away 'apology' often buried in the bowels of the newspaper and all is forgiven. Who would you believe? ...is to ignore the consensus of every credible scientist practicing today. So St Retford, Manchester, name one such 'credible' scientist who believes this to be true then. If there are any scientists or academics in this field reading these postings lets hear your point of view on this subject. Please dont just be an armchair pundit you must have studied and worked in this arena of sustainable green issues.
The only scientists saying global warming isn't happening tend to be in the pay of the petrochemicals industry.
southy, redbridge says...
4:42pm Wed 5 Nov 08
the ice caps have compleatly melted a few times ( both ends)in the earths history its not the first time nor i dought it be the last time.what the tyndall centre dont do is count for what the sun doing at the time,what is the earth obit,the solar system location in the galaxy all this has to be taken into account
Andy Locks Heath, says...
4:54pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
4:57pm Wed 5 Nov 08
"Engineer said to Ian "Do you have an historical example where better technology has resulted in humans reducing their impact?"
Yes. Check out the Industrial Revolution and look at the pollution. Check out the smog in London that killed hundreds as late as the 1950s. All gone now. Any idea why Engineer?"
Engineer said:
Sorry but the fossil fuel based technology you refer to has resulted in continued increase in emissions, more waste etc.
Unfortunately you are only viewing the situation from an achievement and technology point of view and have ignored the economic growth and population growth views.
In order to assess a system you need to include all factors (including the environment).
For example cars started off to be not very efficient and often big (although not all!). That would have been fine if only a few thousand cars were ever on the road from the very first few up till now.
The problem is, that hasn't happened with cars and won't happen with any other technology that uses fossil fuels, even if it uses less fossil fuels.
The reason is that as soon as something becomes more efficient or uses less materials etc. it is cheaper to use, produce, sell etc. So you eventually wipe out any gains in efficiency by growing the market and selling more.
So today TVs are more efficient but most people have 3 or more times as many TVs that they had 30 years ago. Plus more of them are sold across the world to 'new' markets.
The end result of this is that emissions and waste have gone up unsustainably.
Technology won't be enough to solve the environmental problems we have, it must be combined with people changing their lives.
Andy said:
"Engineer mentioned the necessary carbon cuts (despite forgetting nuclear power). As an engineer where is your evidence that the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has led to global warming? Is is not equally true that we have had ice ages in the past when there has been more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (The answer is yes by the way)
Where are you an engineer - Kwik-Fit?
Engineer says:
I haven't forgotten nuclear. Personally i am not keen on it, but i don't make a big fuss about opposing it. Most pro-nuclear people i have come across agree renewables are an important supplement to nuclear. It is never a good idea to have all your eggs in one basket, despite the possibility that a single technology might be a solution. In the future France could well regret depending on one fuel source for some 80 or more percent of its energy.
On the issue of CO2 and climate change...
I have spent so much time on this post!
I think i'll pass on that one and trust the scientists. But i would be happy to tackle the issue at some other time or another post!
St Retford, Manchester says...
5:03pm Wed 5 Nov 08
southy wrote:Are you taking all this pseudo-science from the Daily Mail?
The only scientists saying global warming isn't happening tend to be in the pay of the petrochemicals industry. I find this funny its so untrue and its only greenies that say this when they know that they dont have a leg to stand on. the ice caps have compleatly melted a few times ( both ends)in the earths history its not the first time nor i dought it be the last time.what the tyndall centre dont do is count for what the sun doing at the time,what is the earth obit,the solar system location in the galaxy all this has to be taken into account
If so, can I ask you to also look at the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their reports are written by the most respected climatologists currently practising, and there is absolutely no doubt among them that climate change is happening and man made.
southy, redbridge says...
5:16pm Wed 5 Nov 08
quote"f so, can I ask you to also look at the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their reports are written by the most respected climatologists currently practising" unquote
did you think of looking into there names and you will see not one is a true 100% scientist they not even the lesser a tect scientist they are climatologists and not in with the full facts or they refuse the facts that dont suit there needs.
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
5:19pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Oko-Institut, Darmstadt
Comparison of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Cost of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective.
January 2006
Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.
Life Cycle Assessment of a Wind Turbine, 22 May 2006
Kansas Geological Survey,
Net Energy Payback and CO2 Emissions from Three Midwestern Wind Farms: An Update. December 2006
The World Nuclear Association - Energy Analysis of Power Systems.
Andy Locks Heath, says...
5:57pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Security word pool-news
smetje, Millbrook says...
6:33pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Finlay, Des Moines Iowa says...
6:45pm Wed 5 Nov 08
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=fr5O1HsTV
gA&feature=related
Sometimes links from the US dont work in UK and vice versa - If it doesn't goto YT and enter Global Warming
Its not the conclusive evidence and it is not the foundation to CC but it is factual and worth looking at.
There are 5 sections to see
Shazza (the genuine article, not an imposter), says...
7:13pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Well done Gordon Chuffing Brown...
southy, redbridge says...
7:42pm Wed 5 Nov 08
smetje wrote:they are only smalls ones for personal use
Am I the only person to notice we already have 2 wind turbines on the Millbrook trading estate? Were the council not afraid of a public outcry when they gave their permission, or did they hope we would be too busy watching the traffic lights on the roundabout to even notice they were there.
Rob444, Southampton says...
8:56pm Wed 5 Nov 08
Since when have (tory) city councillors feared a public outcry? What about the public outcry about e.g.,
Closing some care homes despite the trauma that this will cause the residents,
giving the new academies to the Oasis trust instead of to the Southampton Education Trust despite overwhelming support for the latter,
as well as THREATS to:
stop free swimming for children despite government funding being available for it,
sell city-owned works of art,
sell sites which have historic sites located on them,
allow fluoridation of tap water despite overwhelming evidence that this would be bad for health,
just to name a few.
The point that they are missing over wind turbines is that they provide a high visibility reminder to people of OUR responsibility to care for the planet (as well as providing free electricity). This is what the supermarkets' crackdown on throwaway plastic carrier bags is all about.
St Retford, Manchester says...
1:39pm Thu 6 Nov 08
St Retford, Manchester no i dont just that i know the right people quotecrikey, you sound as though you know loads more about it than they do. perhaps you should write to the ipcc and ask for a place on the advisory board.
St Retford, Manchester says...
1:41pm Thu 6 Nov 08
southy wrote: St Retford, Manchester no i dont just that i know the right people quotecrikey, you sound as though you know loads more about it than they do. perhaps you should write to the ipcc and ask for a place on the advisory board.Crikey southy, you sound as though you know loads more about it than they do. Perhaps you should write to the IPCC and ask for a place on the advisory panel.
southy, redbridge says...
2:27pm Thu 6 Nov 08
climatologists are not the people in the know and will use only the facts that suite there needs and leave out the most important facts you need to remember most of the climatologists are a appointed and is not base on what they know they do the leg work they get info pass on to them and they say well is suite are needs so we keep this info oh this bit of info tells to much of the true facts so we better not use this dont want the public to know to much,why do you think nassa sits on the fence about the climate they know that the info being passed out is one sided
OSPREYSAINT, Southampton says...
3:35pm Thu 6 Nov 08
southy, redbridge says...
1:11am Fri 7 Nov 08
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
11:09am Fri 7 Nov 08
"One thing I hope we can agree on is that any debate on global warning never involves true science - it is all about statistics"
Engineer said:
And what field of science doesn't depend on statistics?
Statistics are a fundamental part of science especially when conducting an analysis of data. eg. When you calculate an average (such as a graph of temperatures over time) you are creating 'statistics'.
By definition science is just a set of principles by which you set out to investigate something, that is all. But those principles are designed to strive and obtain reliable understanding of the world around us.
Andy said:
"ten years ago it was predicted we would have hot dry summers and very cold anicyclonic winters"
Engineer said:
Well if knowledge remained static then we wouldn't know better now. But knowledge doesn't remain static. That's why wind turbines are more sophisticated now than they were 10 years ago and that is why understand of climate change is better.
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
11:17am Fri 7 Nov 08
In Indonesia some 30,000 people and 25 factories had to be moved because a company drilling for oil caused millions of tonnes of boiling hot mud to spew out and create a massive mud lake. The lake is still growing and the Indonesians are building huge levies to contain it.
Now that is the sort of price others have to pay for our love of cars etc.
Yet a few people here object to wind turbines?
I guess as long as Southampton folk don't have to move because of a giant mud lake then everything is OK!
Maybe we should take responsibility for our own energy and problems.
southy, redbridge says...
5:07pm Fri 7 Nov 08
they was not driling for oil at the time,they was drilling is right but it was for hot water to harness the power to make eletricity
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
7:14pm Fri 7 Nov 08
Lapindo Brantas (an oil and gas comapny) were drilling for Gas so we are both wrong!
http://www.scienceda
ily.com/releases/200
8/10/081030144628.ht
m
But it shows what damage can done in order to get to fossil fuels. Especially since UK native gas supplies are almost exhausted, it is just as relevant.
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
7:30pm Fri 7 Nov 08
southy wrote:I find you post amusing.
redford i probley know has much has any climatologists and you probley do to.
climatologists are not the people in the know and will use only the facts that suite there needs and leave out the most important facts you need to remember most of the climatologists are a appointed and is not base on what they know they do the leg work they get info pass on to them and they say well is suite are needs so we keep this info oh this bit of info tells to much of the true facts so we better not use this dont want the public to know to much,why do you think nassa sits on the fence about the climate they know that the info being passed out is one sided
How many scientists do you know working on climate science?
They don't do the 'leg work'?
So i suppose the fact that they go out and obtain ice cores is not leg work?
Maybe you think that they all sit in front of a computers and just make simulations?
Maybe you should remember that one of the key climate science institutes in the US was started by a scientist that went out and personally collected CO2 samples for most of his life and was the first person to point out the rising CO2 levels.
NASA keeping quite about climate change?
Tell James Hansen that!
And take a look at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory web site on the subject.
http://climate.jpl.n
asa.gov/
ohdearhowsadyouallare, Southampton says...
10:28pm Fri 7 Nov 08
southy, redbridge says...
1:17am Sat 8 Nov 08
let me point some thing out to you,he was tect scientist when he was doing all the running about and when he was made a full scientist then he founded the climate science institute,and if you go and look on B.A.S paper work you will find he was not the first B.A.S know about the raise and fall of co2 gas back in the 60,s at the same time when they was doing work on the ozone layer and all this 40 years ago not in the last 10 to 15 years.and nassa main people the planetary people are the ones you should look at,not a spanner man
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
10:09am Sat 8 Nov 08
southy wrote:The main people in NASA are engineers, technicians, managers and scientists that know little about earths climate science. eg. they generally specialise in a specific area such as designing and building 'space' technology or calculate trajectories of rockets etc . They may have 'opinions' about climate science but that doesn't mean they would understand the maths, science, research etc. used in climate science.
Engineer, Portsmouth
let me point some thing out to you,he was tect scientist when he was doing all the running about and when he was made a full scientist then he founded the climate science institute,and if you go and look on B.A.S paper work you will find he was not the first B.A.S know about the raise and fall of co2 gas back in the 60,s at the same time when they was doing work on the ozone layer and all this 40 years ago not in the last 10 to 15 years.and nassa main people the planetary people are the ones you should look at,not a spanner man
So inevitably they have specialists for climate science as well.
Both the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have climate change scientists who are very active. James Hansen being the scientist who is the most vocal of all.
Charles Keeling (who passed away recently) is the scientist that collected CO2 samples off his own back from 1957 onwards and produced the data showing atmospheric CO2 emissions rising from that date till today.
The graph produced by Keeling and the Scripps Institute showed a continuos year on year increase in CO2 emissions.
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
12:58pm Sat 8 Nov 08
http://pubs.giss.nas
a.gov/abstracts/2008
/Lean_Rind.html
Lean, J.L., and D.H. Rind, 2008: How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006.
Published in the Geophysical Research letters.
southy, redbridge says...
5:31pm Sat 8 Nov 08
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory job is just the engines but it dont stop them having there own point of view.
when you see work done by say don,prof.k.l.jonnsen then you know your looking at the main people and not there lackeys.its people like him who job it is to gather all the information world wide,and put it together and see what might be happening and come up list and then set up a direction for the lesser to do more research,and return there findings.to often the tect/scientist and lesser are putting up info with there point of view and making it look like if all the facts when its not,its just there point of view thats all,for one person or even a hand full of people to get all the info is way to much to gather in one life time.if you want to find out more join the explorers club in london,there you can get contact with the right people.
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
7:28pm Sat 8 Nov 08
At risk of being geeky! Some more recent research papers for you to ponder over Southy, after all, you know as much about climatologists as anyone, don't you?:
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia - Michael E. Mann et al.
Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation - Robert M. DeConto et al.
Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks - Sebastiaan Luyssaert et al.
Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? - James Hansen et al.
Response of the global ocean to Greenland and Antarctic ice melting - D. Stammer
Rapid early Holocene deglaciation of the Laurentide ice sheet - Anders E. Carlson et al.
PS. I can explain them to you if you aren't sure what they are about.
southy, redbridge says...
11:26pm Sat 8 Nov 08
thing that the climatologists dismiss and never take into account
earth orbit around the sun.
sun spot activity
the sun is expanding and the safe zone is creeping up to the earth
the position of the solar system in the galaxy and weather its moving up or down or on its apex or based out
and the fact there is another galaxy heading towards our galaxy
the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of cm a year and has this happen the tidal range is getting shallower
and the continental plates are moving the north american plate is moving away from the europian plate at a rate of 2 cm a year thus allowing more warm water to pass into the arctic sea and also moving and widing the thermal ocean current in the atlantic its also slowing down and that just some of the thing i know about and it all makes changes to the planet climet
Engineer, Portsmouth says...
12:37pm Sun 9 Nov 08
Southy, but that's about all.
Since I posted a reference to research into the Cenozoic period and then you tell us that 'climatologists' dismiss looking back millions of years, I think many would find your comment particularly amusing.
I'll let you continue with your imagination.
southy, redbridge says...
8:29pm Sun 9 Nov 08
B.A.S has been doing this sort of work for over 50 years and under there old name they can date back to 1907,
so what ever you read on climate changes by climatologists take with a pinch of salt they are not in with the full facts or refused to give out facts that dont serve there needs
made an error i ment to say 150 billion years and not million
Your sayYour Echo
Add your comment
Register for a FREE Daily Echo account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.
Wind turbines
|
|
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
thesaint, southampton says...
10:41am Wed 5 Nov 08