Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Pearson  This will be satisfactory if the RSPB will take personal financial responsibility for the relocation or revenue loss of these agreed wind-farms if they change their minds in the future. As it stands, they are asserting themselves as proposed experts advising where these wind-farms may or may not be located, regardless of actual optimum placement. I can see this as a similar issue that involved Nuclear Power. The Nuclear Power plant is the obvious answer to our Green Energy needs, yet the Environmentalists do not want to use them. Now that the wind-farm has become questionable and resolved to be safe “according to the RSPB” this in no way means that some other ‘wildlife danger’ will not be identified in the future. With every step of the process, it is becoming clearer that Environmentalists are not interested in the people using clean energy; they are ultimately resolving us to use no energy. This is the scenario that will require energy providers to lobby Environmental organizations for areas to install very weak power generation sites. What an extremely lucrative proposition indeed!!!
As for the rest of the story reported in the BBC article; ‘RSPB calls for more UK wind farms’, they state the following.
“In 2007, just 2% of the UK's energy came from wind power, compared with 29% in Denmark, 20% in Spain and 15% in Germany.”
Denmark is doing very good, (if you can say that 20% is good) because they have in infrastructure heavy in hydroelectric power. This type of backup is a necessary to complement wind or solar power due to the massive ramp-up/down power losses encountered with the variable sources like wind and Sun.
Spain is a classic case of Green-gone-awry. They have resulted in spending 30 times more than initially projected for their project and now can’t afford to subsidize the power or build any more wind-farms. As it turned out, everyone wanted into the wind-farm business since the government pays for the construction, subsidizes the cost of generating the power, subsidizes the power grid and then the citizens must buy this green power. Every step of the way, the government (i.e. taxpayers) pays remarkable amounts of money as an investment to power that costs more to generate. In other words, the taxpayer is paying more to subsidize power so they can have the privilege to pay more for their power. They must also continue to pay more to build more wind-farms so more taxpayers can pay more for their power. Keep in mind that if one does not have a reliable backup like hydro, coal or nuclear, the ramping power-loss is 30-50% and power will cost even more (When you have it at all).
What good is green power when it is non-existent or too expensive? No Power at all yet you will still be taxed because of the subsidies……
The villagers have always done their best work when reduced to torches and pitchforks. |
what errant and total rubbish
i'm not aware that the RSPB has ever taken a position against nuclear power - nor against any other form of generation per se - just about location where it is harmful to birdlife.
this sinister environmental conspiracy happpily exists soley in your imagination ted, and it becomes somewhat waring when it is trotted out on every thread you participate in regardless of the original topic
I understand that your basic position is that global warming theory is wrong - but even if you were correct oil and coal are still a finite resource and other energy sources will need to be found to replace them in the not to distant future
nuclear is indeed one solution - but the reason that many environmental groups are opposed to it is that no inteligent solution as to what to do with the radioactive waste has yet to be found