More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Hi Nick, to be fair regarding subsidies as you quote, with all due respect, noone gave a damn about energy saving 1973-2003.

It will be interesting (if we live long enough) to ask that same question relating to how much renewables have been subsidised in comparison to other techs, after such a similar time-frame has elapsed since people did give a hoot. So, at the rate at which renewable tech has been subsidised so far, I would guess the figure would be greater.
 
Last edited:
Hi Nick, to be fair regarding subsidies as you quote, with all due respect, noone gave a damn about energy saving 1973-2003.

It will be interesting (if we live long enough) to ask that same question relating to how much renewables have been subsidised, after such a similar time-frame has elapsed since people did give a hoot. So, at the rate at which renewable tech has been subsidised so far, I would guess the figure would be greater.

Mark,

Exactly why I have asked the question as the main complaint against renewable appears to be the subsidies they have received.

I suspect that the subsidies received by the nuclear industry so far will make those paid out to renewables now and in the future look like peanuts in comparison, especially if you factor in the continuous costs of decommissioning, and the value of the pound in 1973- 2003 compared to today.

So it seems to me if your main argument against renewables is the subsidies they receive, and the nuclear industry has received more in subsidies in the past, present and quite possibly the future, then you cannot really support the nuclear industry.

No particular relevance I live about 5 miles from the old BNFL headquarters, know a few people who worked for them, BNFL did not appear to ever be short of money;)

Personally having seen the electricity being produced by a couple of work colleague’s solar panels, despite our abysmal summer, my opinion is all new houses should be fitted with them.

Having also seen the payments made for the electricity they are producing I wish I had done it, while the subsidies :eek: were in place.
 
Last edited:
Having only responded to your last paragraph Nick, I would like to add;

I agree that some new build homes ought to have Solar in some form. Perhaps not always PV, but if not PV, then Solar thermal at least. Bottom line: It can't hurt.

However, for most, it does not work. Why? Because most homes in the UK are not South facing. Also consider, that without the Feed In tariff which is subsidised by everyone through their enrgy bill increases, most people who bought into solar, would notm have done so for the energy generated by their array alone. It simply doesn't make any financial sense. They do not generate enough to be viable on their own. please note the drop in orders since the FIT was reduced from 40+p per kWh to 20 (ish p per kWh).

Not many people with an average electricity spend of £1,500 per year will pay around 8-10 thousand pounds for a system that can only produce around 2.5-3,000 kWh's per year, when the average price per kWh is 12p. Without the feed in subsidy, that home owner will only generate £360 worth of energy.

So Jeff. Renewables don't work. Not without MASSIVE subsidies to support them. Not unless you wish to invest your money with a 27 year payback term! Personally, I would rather keep my money under the bed!

One of my corporate clients recently suffered a £100,000.00 annual increase in their energy costs, purly due to an increase in thrid-party pass-through charges. What are those? RENEWABLE ENERGY SUBSIDIES my friend! That's what!

Global Warming bollox crippling uk businesses! No room for debate. pure, real world fact!

Discuss and explain to that businessman your arguement about Venus, and he will explain why the cost of his goods just increased!
 
I have two friends in Europe who are involved in the wind turbine issue. One owns an energy consulting company specializing in large industrial projects, and the other works for a wind turbine manufacturing company.

Both feel that wind energy is a complete disaster, powered almost exclusively by the hot air expelled by politicians. The consultant says that the advertised output of the large turbines in England is wildly overstated, because it's based on deeply flawed assumptions (wind blowing at the optimal speed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year). The actual output is only a fraction of what the blowhard politicians advertise.

In fact, wind turbines often CONSUME energy. The larger ones have huge bearings which will develop flat spots if the blade stays still for any length of time. So each is equipped with a fairly substantial electric motor! Whenever you drive by and see a wind turbine appearing to be stationary, in fact there is an electric motor busy consuming energy and via a deep gear reduction system, slowly turning the blade. Not a word about that from the politicians either.

My friend who is a manager for the company that builds them tells me that they're a hoax too. The only way they are viable is due to direct cash injection from the left-wing governments that are completely invested in the notion of green energy, facts and science and laws of physics be damned. If wind turbines were allowed to stand on their own, the cost to produce energy would be higher than almost any other means by orders of magnitude.

But there's lots of jobs to be had screwing inefficient wind turbines together, and with those jobs comes votes. And there are lots of left-wing greenie nuts who have their own jobs in various fields, but will vote for politicians who support these idiotic schemes. Between the two, there are enough votes at stake that the short-term future for wind turbine production seems assured.

I'm not a particular fan of Lonesome Bob, who seems to exist solely to throw rocks at people and issue often ridiculous, inflammatory rhetoric. But on this particular issue, he's right on....
 
Well said that man! Realism will out.

Believe me folks. I run a business that should I wish, would make millions by ripping people off with this renewable energy bull shit. Luckily for all involved, I feel that I already have enough money.

How many ways can one man say 'bollocks'?
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I have two friends in Europe who are involved in the wind turbine issue. One owns an energy consulting company specializing in large industrial projects, and the other works for a wind turbine manufacturing company.

Both feel that wind energy is a complete disaster, powered almost exclusively by the hot air expelled by politicians....

Well said that man! Realism will out.

Believe me folks. I run a business that should I wish, would make millions by ripping people off with this renewable energy bull shit.

Gentlemen, I hope you won't mind me interjecting a bit of thread drift here. I am interested in wind-generated electricity, but on a much smaller scale than I think your comments reflect. If I read you right, your experiences are in large scale, industrial wind generated power, like that which might support what we in America call "...the grid", the electrical transmission and distribution system that feeds all of the houses and businesses and municipalities in America.

What I am more interested in is SMALL scale wind generated electricity, the sort that would allow one small home to be off the grid and be self sufficient. I know PV has some issues to overcome before it can be a viable alternative, but recently there has been quite a bit of development in vertical-axis wind generators here in the U.S. Imagine a squirrel-cage fan, turned 90* so that the axis of the fan is vertical so that no matter from which direction the wind was blowing it would always catch the vanes (or would they be called "louvres"???) and turn the fan, resulting in power generation.

I ask about the vertical-axis systems because in the part of the U.S. where my family home is located there is almost always some wind, and more often than not that wind is between 15 mph and 30 mph, sometimes up to 45 mph, for days on end. It seems to to me that might offer one an opportunity to charge a large array of 12V batteries and thereby allow one to light the residence with 12V/DC "RV" type light bulbs (the POCO in the area where the home is located does not allow back-metering, to my knowledge).

Is there any hope that this is a viable option...on a small, individual scale instead of the huge, industrial scale in which you seem to work?

Just curious....the first use I will make of solar is to heat water....that seems to be the most efficient opportunity at this time, it would just be nice to be a bit more self-sufficient, particularly for those times when blizzards take down the power lines and things can get very dark and cold for quite a while.

Thanks in advance so much for whatever enlightenment you can offer.

Cheers!

Doug
 
Doug, I do work in small to medium scale.

1st, you hit the nail on the head. The key in small scale, (assuming in the USA, you do not get a feed-in payment) is storing the power generated to be able to use it on demand.

2nd, ground source heat pumps are an effective solution for water heating on a domestic scale and relatively cheap.

With limited geographical knowledge of txas, I think it is flat, windy and sunny. A good start!

In your case, these technologies could very well prove benefitial. Investigate and contact me for help if need be. However, without knowledge of other benefits available to 'subsidise' you over there, my advice can only be tech based. But you would appear to be well positioned to do well out this.

Please beware of the 'salesman'. My brethren can be viscious sharks without morals. In a nutshell: Expect reasonable results and be pleasantly surprised. Expect self-sufficiency and prepare to be bitterly disapointed.
 
The biggest scam of all is offshore wind turbines; take all the problems of land based wind turbines and multiply them by several orders of magnitude. I say this despite benefiting from them indirectly; my wife's B&B has various engineers staying who work on them. As voters become increasingly reluctant to accomodate wind farms in their backyards the energy companies increasingly turn to offshore installations. It really is madness.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Scientist recants.
Hysteria: The scientist who brought us the Gaia theory that Earth is a living being, which has led to a bizarre planet worship, has decided that global warming alarmists have gone too far. It's nice to see some clear thinking.
James Lovelock admitted on MSNBC in April that he had overstated the case for man-made global warming and conceded that "we don't know what the climate is doing."
The 92-year-old Lovelock said: "We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened."
Lovelock explained that "the world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time" for the warming to occur. Yet the temperature "has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising" as carbon dioxide was rising.
More recently, as revealed in an interview with the British Guardian, Lovelock disclosed other points of contention with those he calls "greens."
He has come to support fracking to produce more natural gas to fire electric power plants. He's rebuked environmentalists for creating a "green religion" that "is now taking over from the Christian religion." And he has called the idea of sustainable development through renewable energy "meaningless drivel."
Moreover, Lovelock has cast doubt on the article of faith that the science on global warming is settled.
Are any among the alarmist movement listening?
Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
Unlikely. They don't want to hear one of their patriarchs confess that "the schemes" for development through renewable energy "are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant."
Or that he's "very cross with the greens for trying to knock" natural gas fracking, which he sees as a preferred alternative to coal.
And they sure want to ignore that he said in reference to the "settled science" on global warming that the "one thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything."
He said: "You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time."
No, the alarmists are still listening to the 2006 Lovelock, who predicted that "before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."
The environmental left and its allies in the media and Democratic Party desperately want to keep the hysteria boiling. Stirring up an environmental doomsday furthers the politics of envy, sets up conditions that allow more government control over the economy and the freedom of movement, and serves a biased press that enjoys fanning class warfare and promoting heavy-handed government policies.
Consequently, any honest effort regarding conservation has been run over by a political movement that loathes capitalism, deemed private property an abomination and taken advantage of well-meaning people who have not been fully informed.
Lovelock says he still believes that man is causing the planet to warm but just not as sharply as he predicted it would.
The greens will latch onto that, too. But they had better not hold on too tightly.
The statement sounds a lot like a wind-down for a scientist who has indeed gotten "a bit nearer" the truth.


Read More At IBD: The Father Of Gaia Says The Global Warming Warnings Have Become Too Alarmist - Investors.com
 
Just because I like to pile on, and there's so much to pile on about!

"I wrote recently about NASA changing its entire temperature record database, just from July to September. That is, in 2012, NASA changed temperatures going back to 1880. And it did that without telling anyone or explaining it. The net effect was to make the 130-year warming trend steeper, by lowering older (pre-1963) temperatures and slightly raising recent ones."


Read more: Blog: NASA's Rubber Ruler Scandal
 
why can't they be honest and or more explaining...
to many secrets and or lies to keep some happy and or make others think and or get scary and pay for something...
 
why can't they be honest and or more explaining...
to many secrets and or lies to keep some happy and or make others think and or get scary and pay for something...

Why is l'essence so much more expensive in the EU than in the USA? Why do some US politicians want to bring the price up to EU levels?

How can the UN find a way to collect taxes worldwide?
 
Back
Top