The Royal Academy of Engineering reported that, far from being free, wind turbines were amongst the costliest forms of energy. The RAE said the kilowatt per hour rate was well over double the cost of nuclear-generated electricity – and that includes the enormous cost of decommissioning the nuclear plants at the end of their useful working life. The only dearer forms of energy production in the RAE report were off-shore wind turbines, burning poultry litter and wave and marine power.

Then there’s the CO2 emitted in the construction of their swimming pool-sized foundations. Concrete production is one of the most significant sources of CO2.

An estimated 14,000 giant wind turbines would be needed to achieve the 20% limit of the UK’s energy production deemed practical by the Institute of Engineers. Yet, their presence would not shut one existing power plant for the reason given in the first paragraph.

Electricity generation accounts for only a third of the UK’s carbon emissions and 14,000 giant turbines would save only 1.25% of our total CO2 output.

That’s why the Darmstadt Manifesto signed by more than 100 of Germany’s leading academics in fields including maths, electrical engineering, physics, medicine, chemistry, mechanical engineering and thermodynamic science, concluded that, “Wind energy is therefore of no significance whatever either in the statistics for energy or for those of pollutants and greenhouse gases.”

Denmark, Norway and Ireland are just three of the countries that now have moratoriums on wind turbines. I have two turbines not far from where I live and their total output in the last three-and-a-half years is equalled by nine hours output from my nearest coal-fired power station.

Wind turbines might salve your conscience but they wont provide the energy we need unless we’re all prepared to shrink our economy to around that of the mid-19th century.

Not my hypothesis, I quoted directly from three government organistations !!, sort of upsets your attempt to ignore my factual statements !!.

SO following your logic Sim1, are we then to expect that Spain will be having high winds every day of the year to remove the need for Nuclear power stations????.

Also what about the countries that do not suffer from high winds?, what to do about them?.

And Sim1, I make no claim to the quality of my spelling, and as for yor pathetic accusation of trolling grow up ….!

Blogs are used to post articles and then for other people to post responses both for and against the specific article.

At least I take the time to read Jo Abbess’s blog, and then show how wrong her article is!, Jo Abbess can always respond if she wishes.

Here’s the link: -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/spain-national-record-power-windfarms

Learn to spell.

High winds over the weekend supplied 53% of Spain’s electricity – equivalent to the power output of 11 nuclear plants.

High winds over the weekend supplied 53% of Spain’s electricity – equivalent to the power output of 11 nuclear plants.

Rather upsets your hypothesis doesn’t it Joseph.

Do you not have anything better to do than constantly trolling Jo’s website? Are you being paid to do this? If not then more fool you.

The field of sustainable development can be conceptually broken into THREE not TWO constituent parts: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and sociopolitical sustainability.

Indeed the entire phrase is ridiculous:

philosopher Luc Ferry[27] express this view. The latter writes about sustainable development: “I know that this term is obligatory, but I find it also absurd, or rather so vague that it says nothing.” Luc Ferry adds that the term is trivial by a proof by contradiction: “who would like to be a proponent of an “untenable development! Of course no one! [..] The term is more charming than meaningful. [..] Everything must be done so that it does not turn into a Russian-type administrative planning with ill effects.”

——————————————-

Now lets move on to your infantile claims about Nuclear Power:

“Nuclear Power is not an investment, as it does not offer a return for money spent.”

———————————————

Some facts for you to absorb Jo

The 6% nuclear power contribution to global primary energy supply is almost entirely in the rapidly increasing electricity sector, where 17% of global electricity is generated by some 440 nuclear power reactors in 32 countries.

Economics and security of supply have been principal considerations in the choice of nuclear power along with an awareness of its environmental benefits – from mining to waste disposal and decommissioning it produces remarkably little environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Got that Jo?, Nuclear energy has remarkably little environmental pollution or greenhose gas emissions…

———————————————

Now lets take a look at wind farms, lets start with the UK

More than half of the wind turbines in Scotland are on highland peat. This is not sensible. Scottish peat bogs hold three-quarters of all the carbon in British ecosystems – equivalent to around a century of emissions from fossil fuel burning.

Apart from water, peat bogs are largely composed of huge volumes of saturated, undecayed plants. A single hectare typically contains more than 5000 tonnes of carbon, ten times more than a typical hectare of forest. But any disturbance leads to lower water levels and to the peat drying, oxidising and releasing its carbon,

The bog can decompose for hundreds of metres round every turbine, potentially releasing millions of tonnes of carbon. The process is slow, but frequently unstoppable. So many wind farms may eventually emit more carbon than an equivalent coal-fired power station.

As the RSPB’s Lloyd Austin put it last month: “There is no point in building renewable [energy projects] that potentially emit more carbon than they save”…

———————————————

Oh dear Jo, looks like the facts again do not support your claims.