Go North Young(ish) Man...woman... and teens

I'd like to claim it was an eco-mission.

But, in reality, it was just our summer hols.

But there were some eco-bits, which I'll share.

Like the EuroTunnel/Star. Greenest crossing. Not by design, but try getting an RV in an EasyJet.

Actually, can't fault it, for speed or price or simplicity. The threatened strike was less thrilling, but we dodged that.

Our route took us from Calais to visit friends in Denmark and then back via a festival gig for the missus in Holland.

Just a few pix and notes of relevance.

N. Europe is covered in wind turbines. 

Big 'uns. Look at that blade on the flatbed in the picture.

And, for the most part, they were turning. Because the wind was blowing.

It was blowing a lot.

I know this as i was driving a high-sided RV weighing not much over a honking great bridge when it pushed on the side like sail... scaaaarrrreee.

Other than this, the recycling was noticeable by its integrated design (those bins above went down into the ground 2-3m, which means a big old bin liner) and relative unobtrusiveness. Though we saw almost no domestic wheelies, and the camp sites were woeful. Frankly camping in any form is not eco, sorry. You generate a lot of mess and are not in the mood to expend much resolving green issues.

Finally there were the museums.

There was one on the German/Dutch border that was great, covering marine history. The boys really liked the toys made by sailors, all of which moved or played, etc.

And then there was the Vikings. We went to a great village recreation.

Hey, those guys had green roofing a long time ago.

And their recycled door security systems were...effective. Nothing says 'who goes there?' liked a skinned hoofed quadruped.

Finally, there was the loo arrangements...

I'll leave you with that image. It won't leave me for a while.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS - John Prescott, MP (Lab)...

..eco champion.

Councils should be forced to set aside land for wind farms says John Prescott

There's a lot in there to ponder deeply, especially bearing in mind how ecologically beneficial the aftermath of enforced traveler hospitality usually is.

Doesn't he have an entourage he needs to fly to Barbados for winter?

Whatever the merits of wind power (and there are many), them being advocated by such a person and his notions of state force seems hardly encouraging.

CATEGORY - WIND

As with any renewable, I love the idea. I just cast an engineer's eye around the enviROI in practice in many cases.

Try and make your own mind up. Though between most media and governments I'd say you'd often be struggling to be totally clear.

Articles

Guardian - Big oil to big wind: Texas veteran sets up $10bn clean energy project
FT.com - Setback for UK wind farm push - Were it me, I'd have gone for 'Blow to...' Especially when one reads this: 'The large subsidies paid by electricity users to fund the drive towards wind power are generating profits for existing wind farm owners – without producing many new turbines'
Indy - Save peatlands from wind turbines - More facts than I have seen anywhere in a while. Thing is... are they accurate? I am guessing we'll not hear more as the caravan rolls on.
The Register - Shell pulls out of Thames Estuary mega-windfarm -
Telegraph - Shell disappoints with wind farm withdrawal - I merely note the competencies and responsibilities and agendas of those 'disappointed', but look also at this: Quite simply, the costs of wind farms are spiralling out of control. I think in terms of enviROI+, but most talk seems to be of image. Which is better for our kids?
Indy - Shouldn't local people have a say on wind farms? - There are many factors to be considered here; and most are important, if often different ones to different people.

However what often gets lots is clear data on the actual deliverables of energy to meet these 'targets'.

With expanding economies, and populations, there are frankly going to be demands of land and resources for all sorts of reasons.

In making tricky choices my major concern is that whatever else is going on, we are allowed to assess the merits of these alternative energy options on clear issues of ROI and enviROI (environmental benefits to our kids' futures), and not certain narrow, short-term definitions that are more to help box-tickers' careers, lobbyists bonus payments and contractors' subsidy-supported profits.

Telegraph - Wind Weekend to celebrate wind power - Another week/end, another feature/celebration of stuff that is 24/7, 365/365. I guess it must be good for PR with lazy media. Like me! I'll confess to having linked but not read.

The Register - Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought - I have been asking for more meaningful data, especially on enviROI as well as deliverables, for a while. Ta-da! However, doubtless there will soon be a ton more that totally contradicts this. Seems a heck of a lot of uncertainty still to be pinning £100B and the country's energy needs on.

Telegraph - Wind won't solve energy gap - A piece from a 'side', so the real value is in the thread replies.

Times - Giant turbines to make north Windy Central - 'Each could [my italics] generate up to 7.5 mega-watts of power, enough for 4,000-5,000 homes.' What, I wonder, do we know they can... and will generate. Why is this always left unknown? I am keen to be convinced, but such reporting leaves me always wondering.

Telegraph - Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet - A problem, but also something to bear in mind before accusing some of unthinking, unreasonable NIMBYism.

Telegraph - When the wind stops - the other side of the wind turbine argument - Some science (if from a clear 'side' - check the comments in reply. One only, so far)

Gaurdian - A blot of turbines - With a title like that...

Greenbang - Wind power: “Expensive and unreliable” - worth reading on as the headline is not all there is to it

The Register - Greenpeace: UK gov trying to strangle wind power - Um, why? I don't say they are not, but they say they are in favour. Confused?

Guardian - Report finds US is world's top wind producer

Times - Host of new pylons to carry wind farm power

Greenbang - UK wind: only for the rural - Now there's a thing. Who'da thunk and why did no one mention this before? Could have spared all sorts of eco-savvy folk money and looking like enviROI-numpties... like our next PM, for instance. Arthur, bring up more coal from the bunker, if you please! George, throw a few more rods in the reactor! Gives me a warm glow (I hope that's all it is) just thinking of the brain power being deployed on our behalves.

The Register - Carbon Trust: Rooftop windmills are eco own-goal

Times - Country out-performs towns in household wind turbine trials

Gaurdian - Wind farms are not only beautiful, they're absolutely necessary - Just gotta love objective headlines

RenewableEnergyWorld - Software Predicts Electricity Output for Wind - Now this looks more promising, but note reply

ASA - Interesting insights via ad complaint

Telegraph - Giant Upside Down Kitchen Whisks (GUDKW) to save the planet? - Can it be beaten? Personally I'd have gone for 'Blender Blades'... snappier.

Times - Wind turbines generate bonus for homeowners

Guardian - Spinning to destruction - Not anticipated by whom (Whilst being cautiously in favour, as an ex- Civ. Eng I recall wondering how a gearbox in the North Sea stood up), and when, exactly? At what cost? (ROI & enviROI?) And why?

BBC - When the wind doesn't blow - I read this as I read about a chap who 'saves' by using the energy from his next door neighbours' homes to radiate into his. Not too sure this system works too well.

EU Referendum - Trouble at t'grid

Inhabitat - Groundbreaking Energy Ball Wind Turbine for Home Power - Interesting comments and links to this

EU Referendum - Candour from the Beeb - I am starting to sense that not only has the cart been put before the horse, no one actually seemed to figure out that first you need a path to follow. This lack of informed foresight, intelligent planning and sensible, objective, agenda-free media oversight from major public media with immense resources is nothing short of a scandal.

Telegraph - Wind farms, hot air and spin , Wind farms fail to deliver value for money, report claims -

I tend to share most of the concerns articulated here, especially (ignoring a few other pertinent parameters) those of the actual enviROI.

But as an ideal I want the idea to succeed and remain ready to be persuaded. The advocates have not yet, at least in many UK locations, but may win me round.

However, in the same way, those in favour of nuclear also still have a job ahead, at least for this microscopic jury of one.

'...nuclear energy is the most realistic option for meeting our long-term energy needs.'

May be true economically (though I have seen rather scary numbers on simple ROI here, at least without subsidy - which comes from whom?), but I'd hazard that to tick my environmental boxes as well, a few questions need to be answered. Especially... long term... I'd like to have more confidence that there's a better notion of what will be done with the waste, beyond hoping that eventually a solution will be found.

Daily Mail - A load of hot air: Why spending £100bn on windfarms to please the EU is Labour's greatest act of lunacy - Caution: as the title might suggest, this is not what you might call a 'Pro' stance. I also query the claim; Labour might have had a hand in a few other odd and fiscally unwise efforts to challenge this assertion.

And no mention of enviROI.

Times - Wind power plans may be blown off course - Having just watched a YouTube of one that sounded quite noisy, before it exploded, I wonder what rpm was meant when the guy says 'You can easily hold a conversation under the blades as they whizz around'?

Guardian - Wind farms must be nearer coast to meet targets, says report - I always thought they had to be out there to get the wind (or they could all be stuck on David Cameron's roof) , but nearer at least improves the enviROI of maintenance.

Observer - UK wind farm plans on brink of failure

Times - Shell pulls out of its last UK wind farm project

Guardian - UK overtakes Denmark as world's biggest offshore wind generator

Newsnight - Some interesting, if unproven and possibly partisan comments in the comments at the end.

Indy - Winds of change: A beacon of optimism

Greenbang - Wind energy “capacity” - just hot air?
So, here’s a surprise. In one corner a pretty extreme climate optimist. And in the other the leader of our country, a very smart man… who spins on his own axis pretty much whenever the political winds shift. Currently a bastion of ‘green’. Who to believe? No help from the Telegraph. Any experts out there who can help. It’s just numbers after all.
Max/min/average ratings. Wind speeds. Efficiencies. Maintenance schedules. Lifespans. Etc.
With a few less clear influences as work: Targets. Bonusses. Subsidies. Fines. Lobbying. Etc.
So… what delivers an enviROI from construction through to decommissioning that has an enviROI my kids’ futures can depend on?
Anyone?

Times - Wind investment at a standstill

Indy Letters - I missed the piece that inspired it, but I reprint this with my usual caveats about being impressed by titles and concerns that today's major media seem quite content to share black and white in sequence, without really being too concerned that teh reader aquires any sense of subtle shades of green...

When the wind does not blow

It is all very well for Michael Meacher to call for a higher proportion of electricity to be supplied by renewables (Letters, 3 December) but he ignores the main objective of the supply industry: to provide low-carbon electrical power continuously, on demand.

Wind is intermittent and variable. The "cube law" is hardly ever mentioned. (When a 30 mph wind falls to 10 mph, the power output falls by 96 per cent.) The deficiency usually has to be made up by gas or coal generators. Other countries do not have to rely so heavily on carbon credits. The Scandinavian countries have available hydro-electricity. Germany can import electricity from up from up to nine countries. We have one cross-channel cable.

Professor Charles Hughes, FREng

Guardian - Spinning to destruction - Actually an old one I just stumbled across. My main concern with reliability is how it affects the enviROI (gearboxes and salt air don't seem happy bedfellows), but safety is also a maintenance-related issue and concern, too. However, the failure rate, so far, still seems low.

Telegraph - Do you really want a wind turbine? - Oo, facts. There's a novelty.

Guardian - Keep the blades of wind power turning

Guardian - Opposing wind farms should not be socially unacceptable

Telegraph - Wind Farms: the death of Britain - Wind still grabbing the headlines, and not always good ones. And this is a good (bad?) example. Between the piece and the comments in reply the divide makes a climate change discussion seem almost an exercise in polite compromise. It is important, as there is so much money involved. And my main concern remains the enviROI. What beggars my belief is that we have got to this point and there seems still no clear cut trustworthy, objective facts. And when those making the most noise are a target-obsessed government I wouldn't trust to build a sandcastle vs. an often very reactionary press, the issue remains downright obscure. Criminally so.

Telegraph - When wind power blows, jobs will fall - Can't comment on the objectivity of the facts (see above) but certainly a sober outline of some critical issues. Can't help be suspect that an article from a more supportive source would paint a different picture.

Telegraph - How can wind turbines generate so much lunacy? - Ditto. I guess you need to review the comments for 'balance'. But I do prefer cold, hard numbers. And the examples of how badly some media can apparently get them wrong...is concerning.

Guardian - Live Q&A: George Monbiot on wind power - It's a shame, but I rather find the Grauniad and Torygraph to be bookends when it comes to eco-objectivity, so at least this is likely to provide some 'balance' and maybe even facual considerations to the last few I have come across. I hope. I'd pose a question or two, but seom blogs are now too flamey for comfort. but worth a gander IMHO tomorrow.

Indy - Wind power plan blown off course - Don't know where the Indy rates for objectivity, but that headline doesn't bode well.

BBC - Newsnight - The iPlayer is only good for a week. But the follow up comments offer an interesting mix of viewpoints. I think the BBC really needs to address the qualifications of its 'reporters' in what is a very science/engineering-dependent topic (with a fair mix of enviROI economics in the mix - preferably without box-ticking targets and or subsidy-addicted lobbyists skewing decisions). Both to understand the issues and, as important, share them both objectively AND understandably.

Guardian - Wind power: Local difficulty - an interesting debate sparked and, indeed, still brewing, especially as more on the 'Two E's' aspects come out.

Guardian - Wind power: the silent majority must speak out, says Miliband - Always a tad concerned when minority groups (esp: pols) invoke the majority. Even more when mandates are presumed.

Guardian - A wind farm is not the answer - Get the feeling this is topical... and about as polarised as climate change? How is it that there seem yet to be few numbers that anyone can trust, and hence agree upon?

Grants

Information

BERR - UK Windspeed Database -
UK Wind Speed Database -
EERE - Wind Powering America - Its a start. An odd one; but interesting.
energy4all.co.uk - For setting up community projects
warwickwindtrials -
windpowertv.com - NEW - Clear advocates, but lots of useful information to add the knowledge base

Carbon Trust - Small-scale wind energy

Suppliers

allsmallwindturbines.com - Looks useful!
encraft.co.uk -
windandsun.co.uk -
weatherworks.co.uk

See labels below, especially under 'Alt. Energy' for previous notes. If you have anything to add to the headings above... share 'em! Direct to info[at]junkk.com or via the comments on the blog.

Useful Media

renewableenergyworld.com -

Well, he did ask.

Ethical Man on twitter:

What's up? Disappointing response on blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/... not interested in the future of the world?
about 20 hours ago from web

Leads to:

Has Obama lost his bottle on climate?

I fear that the replies so far might not be quite what was wished for by the author. On any measure. So far, not even ten, in reply to a challenge made by a national broadcaster who has spent and is spending a lot (both money and carbon) to push matters in ways that I frankly don't think the majority of the public are either interested in an or buying. That... is poor enviROI at best... wasteful, elitist vanity programming at worst. Here's my reply:

Prompted by the 'disappointing response' (quantity? quality? Or level of support?) challenge in twitter, I can assure you I care very much about the future of my kids on this planet.

However, I do have some concerns about how well it is being served by those who have either appointed themselves or are in privileged positions to help share information in such a way so free thinking folk can make their minds up in an objective atmosphere. And hence, while the message can often have value, I tend to view the messengers, from individual to corporate, quite critically. Especially when 'they' claim to speak for 'me and mine'.

So, taking that last line of the piece, speaking of using less energy....

I fear I had to crank my eyebrow quite early at the notion of using a helicopter for a few seconds' shot 'to picture the scale' of the gently turning wind farm blades.

Like the Hummer-driving-engineer, it seems that many industries - even green-supportive media - can't seem to 'do their jobs' without breezily excusing away certain compromises that are not often accorded lesser mortals struggling to make a crust. This can create a sense of them vs. us situation, often erring on 'do as we say, not as we still like doing because we're creating 'awareness' between which an empathetic bridge is hard to forge.

I was also a bit intrigued about the priorities that can come across, which seemed to me to be;

1) Making money
2) Reduction in GHGs (not clear if that is to 'target' and hence often subsidy-supported, which often is not quite the same as doing right by the planet) and....
3) Production of enviROI+ energy

I would have thought that, beyond reducing at any viable, reasonable, practical point, the generation of energy in a form that produces the lowest 'harmful' by-products should be the main aim, and any advocacy challenged to prove they are so.

And while gimmicks can have a place, especially to help entertain to encourage education and hence information, they can distract. Hence I'd still like a lot more science, and if issues are not clear-cut, well debated by professional scientists and engineers, and not a gaggle of usual suspect interest groups that may make for good TV or meet agendas, but hardly help me arrive at a view on worthy initiatives to support.

For instance there was one point mentioned that I would have liked delved into a lot more. And that was the fact that this vast wind farm was actually located near a town of just 10,000 folk. Now, maybe that's because it's where the wind is. But how does it stack up against, say solar, on a cradle to grave basis (with subsidies stripped away to get a true cost/benefit comparison. It looked pretty darn sunny there. And, just as I subscribe to the notion of wearing a jummie to crank the thermostat down here in winter, I'd probably suggest a suit and tie might lead to the a/c getting cranked up more than it need be where the sun do shine).

And this in turn leads to further questions on massive generation vs. microgeneration, as surely remote locations at distance from consumption do mean compromises to efficiency of delivery.

These are key points that often get glossed over when the discussion seems mainly to be dominated by interest groups, pols and those involved with money on the line. Even academics can be tainted by dubious associations and hence motivations. Hence contentious areas really require more than a couple a views, preferably around the same table, and moderated by chairperson(s) qualified to keep hyperbole in check and call questionable claims to account.

Not something I see or here very often throughout the MSM, and oddly so considering the criticality of the topic and passions that can be aroused in debate.

Hence the decisions made, not made and bottling of by our currently less than stellar political classes become very hard to call.

ps: Did T Boone's people strap you/Justin to the chair for that interview? You/He looks terrified. Can't think why, Mr. Pickens seems a guy well worth listening to?

Bogey persons

Opposing wind farms should be socially taboo, says Ed Miliband

This should, technically, be under the ALT. ENERGY category, but I think I'll give it its own splash.

What the heck does that headline, and by association the words of a government minister, mean?

'Should be socially taboo'? Is he simple? Or just playing to the crowd at the premiere of the Age of Stupid which, a few blogs earlier I have stated I wish to watch, but am more than unimpressed that will not allow any dissenting commentary to enter their realms.

Opposing wind farms should be subject to reasoned debate, facts, objectivity and (what is left of it) democratic process. Plus...enviROI. Just because there's a big whirl thing that meets an EU target and a lobbyist's entreaties doesn't make it right.

Next thing you'll find is Ministers will go on air claiming that the court of public opinion should take precedence over the law....oh.

I think these things can and should be embraced, wherever and whenever practically and cost/eco-effectively possible. But then I don't live near any. I like the look of them. But I accept there are negatives, from noise (close up) to property prices being reduced. Such things cannot be dismissed in such a manner by breaking out of one's pod like something from 'Invasion of the Body Snatcher's and hissing 'Nimby' at folk who have other views, any more than one should throw around pejoratives like 'denier' or 'Treehugger'. Especially if thy are there and you are just passing by.

I'm with Voltaire here, and I while I may agree with much that Mr. M is trying to do, I think he has a darned doltish way of saying it.

Are you... a NIMBY?

This has been prompted by a discussion group, in turn prompted by:

Nimbyism is 'hardening' in Britain..

I fear this term is often rather in the same category as a few other, if not pejoratives, but at least intentionally loaded critiques, along with 'denier' or 'treehugger', that do not serve the cause of rational debate very well.

As one who can think if nothing more impressive to look at than a ridge of rotating turbines, I have to accept that there are those who might not.

And if I'm not too bothered one way or t'other as I pass by, it might be worth giving pause to think of those who might have had one view and are now faced with another... daily.

Plus there are other issues to be sensitive to. Those who post here regularly are more informed and qualified than eye to confirm this, but it is my understanding that there is some noise pollution for homes close by. Also that house prices in the immediate area can be unfavourably affected.

These are legitimate concerns. And I sometimes feel those not on the wrong end of such initiatives, whilst be very passionate in defence of the big picture, can also be a tad insensitive in their critiques. And, in so doing, get a few backs up in the process. Which, more often than not, can introduce... 'delays'.

I, for one, rather shudder when it see it wielded, especially when picked up by the MSM on a slow news day.

Addendum:

I got a cheery reply. Now, 'they' have started a competition to find alternatives. Current top pick is 'obfuscators'. Look what I started:(

Here's what I wrote:

I won't be joining in, but those who feel so inspired may get some fodder from this and the comments in response:

Monbiot's royal flush: Top 10 climate change deniers*

I did note one point made that of that list there were some who were there despite not disputing the fact that climate was changing, or even going further, but seemed to have got on the 'wrong side' by having different thoughts on the best way to address the future as a consequence.

So... be careful with those definitions; they can come back on one.

I look forward to to the winning entry.

Have a lovely evening, which it is out of my window. Off down the shed to make some stuff out of some junk with the kids... by way of example.

Peter
Climatically neutral, reduction positive, waste negative, talk-talk dubious, walk-walk advocate

* I was moved, of course, to chip in..

Just wondrin', having read the piece and as many of the replies as I could cope with, if this ad hominem, ''tis/t'isnt spat between a few folk who seem to be making a lot of career headways out of staking claims on the far extremes, and their various entrenched supporters, are actually DOING anything worthwhile to make the future any better for my kids?

From what I have read here... not so much.

Maybe it is better this way. Lord help the future if most I have read actually get in charge of anything based on their ability to persuade and/or lead.

Addendum 2:

Another reply. Slightly less cheery. And one which rather leads me to think that my plea fell on deaf ears. Some views, and the blogs that cater to them, are too entrenched it seems. And so various groups wallow in their group thinking, rejecting and indeed forcing out any views that do not conform to the ones they hold, no matter how sincere or rationally held. Hardly the best way forward IMHO...

I suggest that you look to the Climate progress blog by Joe Romm, particularly at a recent item on anti-science syndrome (ASS), wherein those who are complete deniers are referred to as ASS wholes!

http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/anthony-watts-up-with-that-anti-science-denier-website-weblog-awards/

Now, what's the betting the only reaction we're likely to get/hear about is something equally 'colourful' in return. Ho hum. Whatever happened to addressing the issues and not the person?

COMPETITION - Our first...

Well, the genesis of one at least. Its working title is... 'Whizz. No Bang'.

Because it's funny how things pan out.

I subscribe to many feeds and forums and lists to not only gain knowledge but also debate with knowledgeable others on various issues, often with a view to getting a... well, view... that might go beyond these pages and on to the site and newsletter. At least in a form that in being shared objectively may help others.

I am in the middle of one currently about the state (and it is sorry) of our nation's flood systems, warning and public comms. Interestingly, I had to go 'off grid' because one of those who know, or think they know better bemoaned having to put up with the input of mere mortals who often cop the sharp end of their highly-resourced conferences, consultations, research and trips all over the shop. And I can find their pronouncements from on high a crock of 'potential energy-from-biomass material'.

However, having gone off grid a while (sadly, you can't get profile and the good stuff without being noticed above parapet), I have found myself in highly productive discussions with some on an other area, namely wind farms.

The reason I am posting here, and hence also in the next newsletter, is that as a result of one conservation I am pondering a competition.

This is to see if there is/can be a low tech, low cost way of preventing bird strikes on wind farm turbine blades that simply make Jonathan Livingstone Eagle avoid the things, and hence at least get this 'yes highly important, yet pretty minor and distracting' issue (in the great scheme) off the cons list for a lot of folk, especially all major media with an eye to what sells papers and generates ratings, if not actually addressing pressing issues.

Thing is... first... we need a prize.

Suggestions?

Offers?

If juicy enough we will then ged our heads round the competition structure and on to as much PR as we can crank up. You never know... it may get spun (geddit?) to greater prominence by those with the media muscle to do so.

Ugly truths

It was only after a while in my Civ. Eng. training that I realised an ugly truth.

Foundations are the most important aspect of any project. They take the most time, cost the most money.... but once the mostly trivial, pretty, above-ground bits are in place, few will even know they are there.

Well, unless they fail.

I was minded of this by an article about a US windfarm that is all nicely in place, but essentially delivering very poorly on its promise, by virtue of there being no infrastructure for it to deliver what it generates.

It's a sorry metaphor for so much I see in matters mega-green these days. Loads and loads of cash and attention given to high-profile, high-vis symbols of 'solutions', but very little thought it seems given to the highly necessary preceding infrastructures that these need to rest upon to actually deliver meaningful deliverables.

And why should there be, when targets, votes and subsidies seem to revolve around the pretty facades rather than any substance below.

Greenbang - Texas ponders its ‘thousands’ of idle wind farms

BBC - Wind power supply to be boosted

I just hope that this is part of a genuine attempt to deliver renewable energy to a positive enviROI, and not some box-ticking, target-meeting effort. I write this looking at a piece on a wind farms in Texas that make mighty purty lookin' twirly doo-dads, but are not, as such connected to anything as the visible, sexy bits were stuck up first, with little thought to unsexy infrastructure. And for the life of me I still cannot understand (though suspect and dread) why such reports use terms such as 'could' and 'hoped'. Don't they blooming well know???! This aspect interests me a lot more than 'controversy' over the odd shredded seagull.

Too much spin; not enough substance

Again, on the subject of wind farms I read a lot on subjective passion; very littel that allows me to add anything up.

Tutting at wind farms

Somehow this has all seemed to be devolved into some kind spat between ramblers, shredded seagulls and.. the END OF THE WORLD!!!!

Whilst all aspects - social, tourist, etc - are certainly of consideration, a few priorities are in order. Especially if we are to remain addicted to unlimited procreation and hence energy addiction in support of demand... and man-worsened negative climate change via greenhouse gas emissions goes from possible to probable to... worth doing something about.

However, in all such pieces, I would dearly love to see also included some clear ROI and enviROI figures for the relative values of the various alternative energy solutions being proposed and, it seems often championed and/or funded without question by simply not being something else.

I have to presume these numbers have been produced and show clear advantages to our futures on this planet. And if so, would be quite potent to me when being required to weigh against more local ecological or lifestyle issues.

I can see by its location and ambient weather conditions how a facility like this one does look more likely to be able to generate electricity in a 'greener' manner than some alternatives, but do all that are proposed? What about downtimes? Maintenance? Transmission logistics?

Sorry, I still feel there is a wee bit too much spin going on (from the inevitable extremes of such 'debates'), and not enough substance.

Addendum:

This is becoming the talk of the blogosphere.

BBC - Proposals to build one of Europe's biggest onshore wind farms are turned down by the Scottish Government.

As have added to the above to one:

This has stirred things up a tad, but I do wonder if in the right way, and amongst the right folk.

Some things are very hard to quantify, so I have total sympathy for those trying to place a value on something as subjective as a view.

However, as a mere MoP (member of the public) trying to wade through a morass of advocacies that may require my cross in a box one day, the whole thing seems to be maintained at a very simplistic, and emotional level.

And I for one, would REALLY like some confirmed, hard numbers on this.

Without them it all comes across as a battle of interest groups, and as belts get tightened, what (possibly incorrectly, but it's a better attitude than being against anything at all) may seem affordable indulgences for many might drop off the options list in favour of what may seem (often incorrectly) essentials.

BBC Green - Blow to wind power

Guardian - Endangered birds come first: Scottish ministers say no to huge wind farm on Lewis peatland - some numbers, but how good are they?

A very cheap shot

And I am making it. Sorry.

Just watching the BBC morning news about a wind farm proposal in Scotland, with those involved making the case for and agin'.

Mainly it surrounds the energy needs vs. other factors such as, ironically, 'environmental damage'.

Thing is, from the start to the finish of the piece, live and to camera, the reporter was in front of a mighty windmill that wasn't actually turning, with a couple behind also acting as nifty perches for seagulls.

At least I am now joined in this less than helpful, and rather superficial, observation by the anchor. Tricky. Becuase of course if they had opted for the library shots the BBC could have been accused of potraying an overly favourable scenario.

It's just as shame that, given the choice to do it live, it wasn't considered helpful to also address the enviROI of the operational facts to round out the case. All I know is that I went away with a vision of a great, big... still turbine.

Call for funding for Hydrogen research

This report from Engineering Talk details how a leading transport expert is calling for significant government investment into research to make Hydrogen a realistic fuel of the future.

"Prof Smith ......... believes hydrogen is one of the best fuel alternatives for the future, but said a significant Government investment is needed now to overcome technical and cost difficulties in sourcing, storing and transporting hydrogen."

Interesting little comment on the Northern Rock support too - "If the Government spent GBP 10 billion - only a third of what they spent on Northern Rock - we could build a high speed railway from London to Birmingham, reducing the need for domestic flights and long-distance car travel."

Now we will have to wait and see whether our gov's plan to surround the UK with offshore wind farms is going to eat all available funds to the exclusion of everything else. However, perhaps we may already have an indication of where the extra revenue to fund such projects may come from?

The wind and the willowy

Dave has beaten me to it, but as he looks at things from the ruthlessly scientific, I often come at it all, I hope in complement, more for the ad-man's view of consumer perceptions.

And words were important this morning, especially with BBC Breakfast New...er... 'press release read out'.

Of course I perked up when I heard this country was going to be independent of nasty foreigners and free of emissions in terms of energy, and all all within an awesome timeframe.

Where I did find my eyebrow cranking was in the manner of deliverables.

I can't quite recall, but I think it was broken into three. Which, for reasons of narrative, I will repeat in reverse order.

The last was something social, I think, like shredded seagulls. I'm afraid I can't really get into that. If all creatures are going to be toast anyway, I think some sacrifices need to be made and I can live with this aspect. I also have to say that the whole view thing is getting a bit silly... at least as the main objection.

The next was more significant. Lots more. Oodles more. But was breezed over rather blithely. Money. What this was going to cost.... us. It's one thing to say 'of course this will impact..', but quite another when this get divorced too much from enviROI.

Speaking of which, this brings me to the last. And it was headed 'Reliability'.

'Ah-ha!', I thought. A nettle being grasped.

Alas, no. This was reliability of supply. Significant to be sure, and I'm not clear I got any answers as to how 'could' supply translated into 'will' supply, once inconvenient facts on durations and useful levels of actual wind speed are factored in.

But, and here's the thing, no mention of what I was thinking of under reliability. Namely how these things are at doing what they do, parked into the ocean, being battered daily by wind and salt water. And this has to be important, as they might not be the best option if we are having to rebuild them a lot more often than claimed.

Which brings me to the word 'Quality'. Because this was the next piece of the morning 'sofa, so trivial' news. Seems 'we' are going back to 'quality', at least in fashion, and to encourage us to spend as much as we can on such essentials as thigh-length patent leather boots we had some 'expert' whose only contribution was a gallon of peroxide down the sink and an outfit that looked like she was on her way back from leaning on a Kings X lamp post all night.

Seems the collective wisdom of the group was that 'quality' equated to buy one massively expensive bit of tat because of the label, as opposed to a series of cheaper bits of tat with less ad-supported ones. And it was acknowledged all round that these things were only good for a few outings until the next fad comes around... but who cares.

My definition of 'quality' is slightly different, and more to do with the one I have for 'reliability'. Things that last.

Shame our national broadcaster can't seem to get on board with that, too, especially as it pumps out what it thinks are the necessary box-tickers on enviro issues at the same time as a bloated squanderfest.

Such as Declan's ongoing woeful romp with the 'low carbon' family. Today we got a few tips on green Christmas. And a sorry collection they were too. The only time I thought it did get potentially interesting was when he pointed out to the guy selling Xmas tat that encouraging the purchase of eco stuff that you didn't need to replace year on year wasn't a great economic model. The answer was less than convincing, I felt.

Nor were the comments to all this as sign-offs from our overpaid guardians of the Christmas eco-message. Declan referred to the closing of the carbon family's efforts over the year as an 'end to the punishment' . The bouffant scored e-cards as 'not as nice as the real thing'. And the blonde thought LED Xmas lights were not as 'nice and twinkly'.

And that was the message I left with. 'Yes, talk about it for sure. But we're not changing even if we have been told to tell you you should'. Nice.

Update

Gaurdian - Wind energy to power UK by 2020, (sez who?) government says

Guardian - Blow by Blow

Thank you!!!!

But then, why the heck if you - as a journalist, and one with what one might imagine a more than average desire to see such things through the greenest of hued glasses (no offence) - can see through this, am I getting fed the rosiest of 'couldfests' by the national broadcaster and others?

On their take 'we' 'could' be firing up the jacuzzi on windy alt-eng supply from a coastal array in the next few decades.

Where are the facts? I desperately want this all to be true, but other than some vague tilts to a few 'issues', I am none the wiser on actual deliverables.

Stuff such as 'costs' are alluded to, but they 'may' be vast and 'may' be ridiculously excessive. And all dumped on the consumer, too late to argue, when the Minister and the MEP are doing a post-pension fact-checking tour of the engineering contractors' lobby firm's beach villas.

And then there was 'reliability'. Not the one I am more concerned about, namely how these things stand up to the wind and salt water for the claimed lifespan, but the almost as pertinent one of how what they say they will do actually gets done by way of turning wind into usable 'leccy 24/7.

Until this piece I thought my kid's'futures were really going to be decided, by our major media at least, on the basis of a government press release. Shame so few others may see there are BIG questions that need asking before rushing to print or the screen.

More windmills for Don Quixote to tilt at?

Spain is going to invest in a project to develop vast windfarms in order to reduce its dependence on natural gas and coal fired power stations. As reported in today's Telegraph.

"The Ministry of Industry plans to announce over the next few weeks its more detailed plans to erect tens of thousands of pylons.
This will require a further investment of about €45,000m in order to produce 107.845 MW of electricity by the year 2030. The ambitious scheme involves tripling wind power in order to reduce Spain's dependency on foreign suppliers of gas (North Africa) and to reduce pollution."

The overall plan is to produce up to 49% of energy requirements from renewables by 2030. My bet is that Spain will succeed while here in the UK we will still not even be at the 20% target set for 2020, even when we get to 2030.

BT, ring true?

When I first read this, I thought 'great!': BT invests £250m in wind farms

But, sadly, these days pretty much anything I read I need to question, just to make sure I am getting the full and accurate story. First for greenwash, and then for agenda.

Now I don't doubt it is probably a good thing, so please remember these are just questions, and the enviROI+ reasons they popped into my head:

'...a £250m wind farm project to generate renewable power that will supply a quarter of its energy needs by 2016.' Will? Or is this another 'at peak, 24/7 job? I just need to know because if not it is misleading, and also using one story to sell in (...puts pressure on other large UK companies with large land banks to consider similar action) others, possibly ill-considered. And I can't see that's right.

'...expects the new wind farm project to help the company hit its new target of 80 per cent by 2016.' Expects? Why not 'will'?

"... the UK derived around 4 per cent of its energy from renewable means, a figure it needs to treble over the next decade." Why? Targets? Or valid science/engineering estimates? What if this achievement does not actually reduce Co2 as well as other means?

" ... this is not the latest trend, this is the beginning of a cultural change. We all have to do this," I worry when I see it in terms like this. What matters is if these measures work. This aspect seems vague or unexplained almost every PR reprint I read.

"...could be windy enough to build wind farms, " Seeing a trend here?

"It said that its wind farms could generate a total of 250 megawatts of electricity, enough to power a city the size of Coventry. The project could save around 500,000 tonnes of carbon being emitted into the atmosphere, " Er...... And it is not even beyond being thought about. C'mon Indy, ask the questions!

"BT is looking for partners to participate in the project, " And finding them? How far off is this non story?

And not a shredded seagull in sight!

I have been keen for some good news on the alternative energy front for a while. Maybe this is it: Dutch build towering wind turbines out at sea

Seems they are learning how to build them, which is a slight worry, but nothing ventured... I just hope at the end we may end up with some definitive data on their enviROIs.

And when I read that 'It is hoped that when they start rotating in early 2008 they will cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 225,000 tonnes, helping the Dutch to meet a target of 20 percent renewable energy use by 2020', that is a real measure of value. Words liked 'hoped' and 'helping' give cause for pause, especially considering the costs and logistics. The sea and salt-air laden coast of Europe is not the easiest of environments on structures, especially those with moving parts.