Wonder what they told David and if he is willing to tell us?
What was said about:
Blyth offshore wind turbines
Blyth harbour wall turbines
The size of the proposed turbines, height to tip for repowering those on the harbour wall
The Environment Agency Flood risk report 05/06 for the harbour wall
Was he given a tour of Blyth to see the current tubines from a resident's viewpoint?
Was he given the load factors for the North East 'operational' wind farms for 2004/05/06?
I would like these answers!!! Why the interest?
My father was born in Blyth and I visited it many times
He's never answered any of your posts up to now and this would be your best chance of getting one, Lizabeth. Who knows? Maybe he had you in mind when visiting... :)
Tizzy
I did ask David not to respond earlier as this is such a controversial topic. However I would like now to know what he was told,but perhaps it is confidential informatiion!
I am adding for general information a letter in The Telegraph 18th September
Sir The Conservative Party's new environmental report now proposes withdrawing the covert Renewables Obligation subsidy from onshore wind power.
The British Wind Energy Association says: "The Conservative proposals would end all support for onshore wind and cripple the UK wind industry overnight."
So they admit this at long last. Electricity from windpower is only economic with a subsidy in excess of 100 per cent, continuing into the foreseeable future. An industry that could be "crippled" by withdrawal of subsidy probably deserves to die on economic grounds alone.
Dr John Etherington, Llanhowell, Pembrokeshire
Comment After the recent Radio 4 programme, criticising wind power the BWEA posted on its website: - "There is no subsidy... "
A windturbine landscape is the future for us according to the conference yesterday in London on renewable energy.
This to meet EU targets
I was told at last years conference by the same person that the Blyth offshore wind farm the most ill conceived location for a wind farm
Quote:
Never mind the quality see the height
Still struggling to understand why so much attention was given to the presentation on a wind farm in Australia and why the Renewable Obligation* is not explained to the consumerwho pays for it and without which EON'S Chief Executive admits, no one would be building wind farms
Only 2 out of the 10 wind farms in the North East are operating at the load factor quoted in their planning applications. What about the electricty they were said to produce and the emissions they were said to save?
Brown surely has a lot to answer for on this*(Northern ROC)
For information
Loughborough to host green research instituteNatasha Gilbert
Thursday September 20, 2007
EducationGuardian.co.uk
A consortium of three universities from the Midlands has won the bid to host the prime minister's proposed £1bn Energy Technologies Institute (ETI), which will research new green energy supplies.
Posted Thursday, 20 September 2007, 1.06pm on Newcastle University website (Newcastle is part of the consortium in the North East bid)
The North East England consortium is a partnership between Newcastle, Durham and Northumbria universities, together with the New and Renewable Energy Centre (NaREC), the Centre for Process Innovation (CPI) and One NorthEast.
The University's Vice-Chancellor, Professor Chris Brink, said:
Quote:
''Of course we are disappointed at not having won the right to host the hub of the Energy Technologies Institute, but we extend our congratulations to the Midlands consortium."
Wind industry to agree new CO2 reduction figures with Advertising Standards Authority Tuesday 15 October 2007
The ASA found that BWEA member company npower had breached its rules by using a figure of 860 g/kWh for CO2 displacement for its proposed new Batsworthy Cross wind farm.* This figure had previously been agreed between the ASA and BWEA, and previous ASA adjudications had accepted the figure. In overturning the figure the ASA found that the company had acted in good faith in producing its publicity material.
Quote:
The ASA ruling stated "We noted that Npower had followed previously accepted advice and used the 860 g CO2/kWh figure. Although we welcomed their efforts to ensure that their claim was based on an established figure, we nonetheless considered that that figure was no longer representative of the UK electricity generating mix
."
For the record
This point has been raised many times and ignored by cllrs, planners and even the Inspector at the Trimdon wind farm appeal
'Our' representations to the Examination in Public EIP for the Regional Spatial Strategy RSS included well documented reference to just this and despite the sources of material cited in the Representations, they have been ignored.
Quote:
We consider our Representations will in due course be found to be correct in that the proposals in the RSS, as approved by the Panel and the Government's proposals, will not lead to the cuts in emissions claimed and indeed may well lead to significant problems with transmission of electricity.
We believe that evidence from wind turbines already operating in County Durham firmly help to establish our Representation
Does NAREC know? Blyth offshore* is said to be the most ill-conceived place to build a wind farm? Clipper wind should know this.
News Article 05 October 07 US wind technology leaders select the north east for "next generation" turbine development
CALIFORNIAN energy giant Clipper Windpower is to develop a new generation of offshore wind turbines in North East England. The decision was hailed by UK Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton, visiting the company’s headquarters in California today, as further evidence that “the UK is fast becoming a magnet for renewable energy investment”
1980-
David Still has worked in the renewables industry since the early 1980's, including leading on the UK's first offshore wind farm Blyth Offshore This had a total project cost of Approximately £4million and received the support of the European Commission from its Thermie Programme.
The 2 X 2.0 MW turbines Vestas V66 are 91 metres to the tip
Chairman of the British Wind Energy Association for 5 years up to 2002 David Still was appointed as Renewables Advisor at the DTI in 2003, also a member of the Renewables Advisory Board,
He is the Managing Director of Clipper Windpower Europe.
One of the Blyth offshore wind turbine generators has had no ROCs accredited since 2002
The second one has many months of outage
Blyth Harbour Wall turbines have averaged about a 12% Load Factor 2003-2006
So much for the green electricity said to be produced and the C02 savings predicted at the planning permission stage.
The OFGEM website has monthly information on the ROCs accredited
World's largest offshore wind turbine to be in UK
By Catherine Elsworth in Los Angeles Last Updated: 1:01pm BST 05/10/2007
A leading California alternative energy company is to develop the world's largest offshore wind turbine in the North East of England.
Clipper Windpower will develop its prototype 7.5 megawatt turbine at the New and Renewable Energy Centre in Blyth, Northumberland.
The Britannia Offshore Wind Turbine will have the potential to meet the energy needs of 5,500 homes and offset more than 32 million tonnes of CO2.
A single 7.5 MW turbine - 50 per cent more powerful than existing turbines - could potentially provide for the electricity needs of more than 5,500 homes.
It is hoped the project, a collaboration with One NorthEast, the regional development agency which is investing £5m could lead to a generation of new turbines being constructed in the area.
Most modern wind turbines are rated between 500 kilowatt and 2 megawatt and the most powerful to date is rated at 5 megawatt. Clipper's new turbine, dubbed the Million Barrel Equivalent, will aim to offset the need to import and burn one million barrels of oil over its lifetime.
The existing turbines at Blyth Offshore Wind Farm and Blyth Harbour have a maximum capacity of between 2 and 4 megawatts, the larger providing enough electricity for over 2,240 households.
Clipper Windpower, which has offices across the US, Mexico and Denmark, also announced it would make Blyth its European Centre of Excellence for Offshore Wind Technology
Tizzy says "Lizabeth, how about our power suppliers show us how much turbines have 'saved' us on our quarterly bills? They must have the data, after all."
They are I believe supposed to show how much we pay in subsidy but don't! Turbines are not saving us any money and currently in the North East,the area I monitor closely, are neither generating the electricity nor saving the CO2 'promised' when planning permission was given. the article I posted was from America. Note
Quote:
The existing turbines at Blyth Offshore Wind Farm and Blyth Harbour have a maximum capacity of between 2 and 4 megawatts, the larger providing enough electricity for over 2,240 households
This is not really clear but the 2240 households annually is the figure expected from 4 MW installed capacity yet for the years 2005 and 2006 the actual figure is nearer 200 annually.
Blyth Harbour Wall turbines have averaged about a 12% Load Factor 2003-2006
The EIA for the repowering application is detailed and lengthy, 600 or so pages. However I do have concerns which I have made to the council concerned.
NAMELY:
No flood risk assessment
Potential noise from such large turbines
Equipment to mitigate the effect of wind turbines on radar has not been fully tried and tested
The photomontage do not depict accurately the effect on the naked eye
Predicted CO2 emission savings and electricity generated are exaggerated
.What is the nett cost of the most efficient wind turbine over its projected lifetime, ie cost of planning, building, mainenance, subsidies, anything else I've missed out.
. What is the total output this single most efficient turbine can produce over its life?
. Thus, how much does each MWatt cost, in today's terms?
. How much does each MWatt cost from, say, gas powered stations?
. What is the thermal efficiency of said wind turbine?
. Is there any difference in the traded price of turbine power to other generated electricity?
Tizzy will be disappointed to read this on the Buckinghamshire action group site www.blew.org.uk/
Increasing stealth subsidies (set to reach £1billion each year by 2010) means ever increasing bills.
Quote:
Your money will pay for Your Energy’s inefficient wind factory Up to 60% of wind farm revenues come from subsidies paid for by your electricity bills — £600 million to wind farms alone this year, that’s up to £90 per year per household. Let’s get value for money and only support worthwhile schemes.
Wind industry experts say that underperforming wind-farms supported by heavy subsidies are pushing our electricity costs up Without the subsidies, no-one would build wind farms in this area. Bad investments in inefficient energy infrastructure waste our subsidies and push electricity costs up for years to come, making the UK less competitive.
Please visit this site and some of the links in particular MAG
These sites are superb and with all the links show the strength of feeling throughout the UK They cover the technology whilst I stayed with the methodology as you all know
However as Tizzy knows I am sure Blair was fully supportive of turbines in his constituency.It was his agent writing on Blair's behalf as an MP who conveyed that message regarding Trimdon near Blair's North East residence Trimdon (TWAG) was later lost on appeal (written reps) Objectors to Walkway/Butterwick Wind farms (SWAT) could not even make contact with him.
As they said "Sedgefield has no MP".
From BLEW website.... even the former Prime Minister doesn’t want wind turbines in his constituency
Fyi This was misleading reporting in the local paper
The potential effect of the turbines in Blair's constituency on Durham Tees Valley Airport is worrying, as I have pointed out earlier chapter and verse
This thoughtful and disturbing letter (circulated by www.countryguardian.net) shows clearly what we face. A latterday politician once described our democracy as an "elective dictatorship". No arguement with that.
The Planning Inspector deserves an ASBO for his destructive conclusions on Fullabrook Down ... a "protected" Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty"
Quote:
Western Morning News
NOWHERE IS SAFE FROM TURBINES
Date : 30.10.07
The only thing to come from the efforts of the people of North Devon who opposed the Fullabrook Down wind farm development is a clearer message to us of what the rest of the South West is up against in trying to preserve our landscape.We can now all see that a government inspector has his remit and could just as well have written his judgment out as a standard form, ready to pass out to all of us, and that this development has nothing to do with environmental issues,
In fact a similar thing has happened in Essex, where ten turbines are to be built next to a 7th century Saxon chapel and the government inspector said its essential character would be unspoilt.
Along with this we have the likes of Regen South West - a supposed independent renewable energy office which, although we pay its wages, is no more than an advertising agency for the wind power industry.
In fact several of its board either own or are executives of such companies.
Not only that, but it also produces literature for guidance to our councillors and planners with data from the British Wind Energy Association.
For the chief executive of this office to say that Devon would come to see the development as a feather in its cap is a patronising slap in the face for all those who opposed it.
What I cannot understand is why Devon's Green Party was so in favour of this development when the massive impact on the countryside from a flawed technology was so obvious to everyone else.
Its spokesman said it was a David and Goliath result.
But again this is a piece of spin, as this Devon Green Party had the Government on its side from the beginning as well as, I suspect, the huge resources of the Green Party.
You would think that members of this group are not stupid people and would have studied wind energy and seen how poorly it performs.
If they did, then they could not fail to see it for what it is - and that is a nice big earner for the wind power companies and, in the words of Christopher Booker of the Sunday Telegraph, "the great wind scam".
So then to support it points to a political agenda rather than an environmental one.
It is a shame, but we can predict now that the 66-megawatt power station will only produce a yearly average of no better than 18Mw and disrupt the grid with its intermittence and ruin the rural aspect of this part of Devon.
Once when City boys received their annual bonuses and were looking for something to spend it on they came to the Westcountry, where, to them, land and property is cheap.
But now they should be aware - as we are - that nowhere is safe from wind farm developments.
Proof, if any were needed, of the dog’s breakfast Labour is making of energy can be found here (for the complete article). www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2202128,00.html
Quote:
Rising fear of energy crisis this winter
Electricity shortages and gas supply problems predicted to push bills up Terry Macalister
Wednesday October 31, 2007
The Guardian
Britain faces the prospect of power shortages and soaring prices this winter after the National Grid warned of a shortfall in electricity-generating capacity yesterday. The alert coincides with a surge in gas prices, which are now 40% higher than in continental Europe, and the confirmation that a vital import plant in South Wales will not be operational this winter.
And it emerged last night that the energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, met power providers and users last week to discuss mounting concerns that the UK was heading into another winter of soaring prices and power shortages, similar to the one that forced some manufacturers to shut down capacity 24 months ago.
So what is to save us? You’ve guessed it … the answer is blowing in the wind.
Most of the ruinously expensive turbines industrialising our precious countryside struggle to achieve 25% operating efficiency. So what are we supposed to do for the other 75% of the time – hibernate?
Electrical engineers will tell you that “proper” power stations idling in background, to fill all the turbine gaps, ADD to emissions rather than reducing them. So the sole “justification” for this shambles simply doesn’t add up.
And did you know turbines can’t work at all unless they drain power from the grid? Do they generate more than they take? I understand that in many cases the answer is NO.
So the bottom line is: dump wind and concentrate on solutions that work.
Super-insulation of new buildings does away with central heating. And put PV solar panels on them (also add rain recovery) to drag ourselves into the 21st Century. Phase out inefficient domestic appliances. Encourage heat pump technology. And so on.
Do the obvious, simple things NOW to eliminate any excuse for the wind farce.
The British economy and way of life are dependent on reliable energy supply. We urgently need to get it back on track.
Now I'm confused. I understood the taxpayers rather than the bill payers are subsidising these turbines. Given the onus of responsibility could you clarify this, please?
Is there any correlation between the higher fuel prices in the UK with the ownership of the suppliers, or that of gvt duties, when compared with EU prices? In other words, why are prices 40% higher here than in the EU?
Now that solar panels are legally required on new domestic build in N Ireland, when can we expect such measures on all new build in the rest of the UK, plus other stuff as mentioned above and elsewhere, rather than a few random 'Eco-towns' in the long years ahead?
It is confusing Tizzy, and complicated. Subsidy through taxation is a factor, so is the ROC system which pushes up what we pay as consumers. Ofgem complains the ROC related increase imposed for electricity is significantly higher than it should be.
Parts of mainland Europe have much better hydropower potential than we do. Others (i.e. France) have a high nuclear component. Denmark’s much publicised wind power generation actually subsidises other countries because on the occasions when wind conditions are favourable, the electricity has to be offloaded very cheaply to neighbouring countries at a very heavy discount. Denmark is able to use only a small fraction of what its turbines generate.
The UK is effectively isolated from the rest of Europe with only a low capacity electrical conduit linking us.
None of this properly explains the large difference in prices you mention.
Couldn’t agree with you more on solar collectors for all new build projects. The economies of scale would bring the cost of PV panels (that can look like conventional tiles) right down … if only there was the kind of encouragement Germany (for example) gives with its 100,000 roofs programme. Add super-insulation to eliminate the need for heating almost all of the time, and use passive (very renewable) energy minimising designs and it could start to transform the energy landscape.
That’s why the government’s obsession with failed industrial wind farms is so frustrating.
As an experiment, try the comparison site uswitch.com and put in your electricity details. You may be surprised by the differences. Some of the companies simply act as billing services. There can be regional biases according to where you live.
You can see here bwea.com/members/CompanyDirectory.asp which BWEA member companies you recognise as domestic electricity suppliers. Npower, e.on and Scottish Power for example.
The regulator Ofgem and possibly the watchdog Energywatch should be pro-active in protecting the consumer against the wind ripoff. This Ofgem intervention upset BWEA members – see OFGEM opposes RO http://eeru.open.ac.uk/natta/renewonline/rol67/7.htm Raising with Ofgem the wider issue of wind power relevance to our security of supply and its chronic lack of value for money is on my agenda to do.
And here's some good news!
Quote:
The UK's leading renewable energy body BWEA has expressed grave concern and disappointment at the Conservative party's Quality of Life policy review findings on energy.
The Conservative proposals would end all support for onshore wind – and cripple the UK wind industry overnight.
oilvoice.com/BWEA_Says_Conservative_Energy_Proposals_Would_Cripple_Wind_I/10747.htm
So it's official - the wind industry can't survive without unsustainable handouts.
Couldn’t agree with you more on solar collectors for all new build projects...
Add super-insulation to eliminate the need for heating almost all of the time, and use passive (very renewable) energy minimising designs and it could start to transform the energy landscape.
You are so right, we have had the technology to build low-carbon homes for years, but they have largely remained the preserve of a few self-motivated pioneers. For far too long the planning and building regulations have been geared to the demands of the ultra-conservative construction industry, consequently we are still building the majority of homes in the same energy-inefficient way as we always have.
Quote:
That’s why the government’s obsession with failed industrial wind farms is so frustrating.
It's not just their obsession with wind, it's their obsession with electricity generation as a whole, and their apparent failure to grasp the enormity of the whole energy and climate change problem. We need an integrated approach to low-carbon energy in all sectors - electricity, heat, transport, industry, waste etc. which addresses both the supply and demand sides of the equation. But what we've got so far is a bunch of narrow minded, piecemeal and often contradictory policies driven mainly by powerful vested interests and fear of voter rejection.
Self powering,self heating water collecting,sewage treating homes have been built for decades,completely independant of
services.
The main feature of them all is north/south orientation
large windows facing south and none north.
they can be built with stuff thrown away normally.or with
new stuff to any level of luxury desired.
I saw one that had a temperature of 60/5 degrees average
(livable) it was up a mountain and these temps were in mid winter.
more info here;
[http://www.earthship.net/]
there are many other sites dealing with self sustaining homes
growing food in them is part of the systems.
Government cannot tax you if you are self sustaining
So they will not help or promote this ecosustainability.
They are the problem.
Providor
Not often you get things this badly wrong but.
Quote:
It's not just their obsession with wind, it's their obsession with electricity generation as a whole, and their apparent failure to grasp the enormity of the whole energy and climate change problem. We need an integrated approach to low-carbon energy in all sectors - electricity, heat, transport, industry, waste etc. which addresses both the supply and demand sides of the equation.
Suggest you rethink;
1/ Centralised Electrical Generation as the major energy production system for the UK is key to maintaining a supply of cheap available energy.
It is the only large scale power system that can be carbon free in the near future.
It will be the major alternative driver for Transport, Industry;
Transport - in the coming decades - there isn't any real alternative to carbon fuels at present (Hydrogen is some way off, you know my view on current Bio fuel technology)
Industry - electricity can replace oil firing in all except high heat input processes.
With electricity, there is no waste for the user, and for renewables generation no waste in production.
2/ The demand side - Use - is already subject to considerable effort to improve efficiency. You spelt out the basis of the practical things we can do in the thread on saving energy.
Replacing and upgrading the UK housing stock will take a long time - while it is in hand we have to provide low carbon energy to keep the population warm!
So where are we -
Wind is the only mature renewable energy production system we have at present.
In the UK it is currently subsidised through the ROC system, simply to encourage rolling out the technology in the fastest possible time frame. - (My view is that the time has come to transfer that subsidy to tidal).
Around the World large scale wind generation is installed without subsidy and works well.
Nuclear - the bridge to the future - is blocked by the unreasonable emotional fear engendered by the greens in the 60's thro 80's right up to today.
The anti wind campaigners are using exactly the same tactics to prevent and denigrate wind technology.
I will accept that there are locations where wind turbines are inappropriate - most of the complaints regarding the effectiveness of wind are inaccurate.
Wind is only a stop gap, because it is weather dependant it needs back up - but as it is replaced by more reliable sustainable renewable systems, the turbines can be removed leaving the site as it was before they were erected.
If fact given the current developers desire to despoil our wild spaces wind farms are actually protecting them. - you can't put a housing estate up on a wind farm.
I don't think its a case of "failure to grasp the enormity of the whole energy and climate change problem".
The problem is that we have a bunch of greens who haven't a clue how to restructure our systems for a nil fossil fuel future - have all sorts of hang ups about things like Nuclear and now through the efforts of the anti wind lobby are adding that technology to the list of things we mustn't do.
These people have the ear of government, and a large section of public, especially those who are technologically illiterate.
From the politicians view climate change and resource shortages are an excuse to levy taxes, set up red tape and bureaucracy. For others (Gore) it is a business opportunity.
Not quite sure how you figure that, since nothing I have said disagrees fundamentally with most of your comment above. We appear to disagree as to whether the Govt has grasped the enormity of the whole energy and climate change problem, but as for the rest of your comment I think we are pretty much singing from the same hymn sheet.
Yes, in the long term we will probably be able to rely to a large extent on low-carbon centralised electricity generation, but in the meantime we can for example replace gas with biomass and waste for heating buildings. It's a mature technology which is widely used elsewhere in Europe, and we could have been installing it here for years already if the Govt hadn't been so obsessed with electricity - if they broadened their horizons a bit and looked more ambitiously at renewable heat as well as renewable electricity, we could get to the low-carbon goal that much faster.
Hydrogen may be nearer than you think, especially if we go for underground coal gasification with carbon capture, which has been shown to be feasible and could be implemented on a large scale relatively quickly, and would be using an abundant indigenous fuel instead of having to import gas with all the attendant risks which that implies.
Liquid biofuels I agree are out of the question in their present form. But they may have a part to play if we can make them using a different feedstock which doesn't compete with food crops or require rainforest destruction. Didn't you like my idea of utilising waste heat and CO2 from power stations to grow algae as a biofuel feedstock?
Wind is fine in appropriate locations where a decent power factor is achievable. Tidal should definitely be on the menu, ditto nuclear.
Quote:
turbines can be removed without leaving no damage to the environment.
Funnily enough I used precisely that argument recently when I was trying to get DEFRA to reverse a decision to ban biomass crops on the grounds that they would spoil the view, but it cut no ice.
We may differ as to some of the details Glynne, but I think that our visions have much in common.
Sorry Providor - an over the top response to what I miss read as support for the anti wind lobby.
Yes our views are generally pretty close.
Quote:
but in the meantime we can for example replace gas with biomass and waste for heating buildings.
Yes it works - but small scale is not as efficient as large scale, Emission control is not as easily managed on the little package units.
But its much better to usefully incinerate waste than dump it in Land Fill.
Its necessary not to mix Biomass technology with Waste. Waste has serious contamination issues.
Gas is the short term fuel - 10 to 40 years - with LNG import. But there will not be enough to power the whole UK.
It will just give us enough to run the CCG's until N power can come on line. (if we can out maneuver the greens)
I heat my home with wood from managed woodland and the odd fallen tree from the local farm.
But if everyone did it we would soon run out of tree's.
The point is that while I agree with Biomass as a fuel there simply isn't enough to supply many homes.
Its the same argument as Transport Bio-fuel we start to use up our food producing land to provide energy - there are better ways to do it (at present wind is one).
Methane recovery from capped land fill sites is not piped into the gas grid, too expensive and complicated - generally the methane is fed to small gas turbine generators (3 - 6MW's) and the power sent to the grid.
Wasteful the GT is running at 30 - 40% efficiency but the exhaust is mainly water vapour.
A CHP plant would be better @ 80+ % - but what do you do with the heat.
I don't think the government has got there act together with electricity - but the obsession with renewable generation is in the right direction - and the reasoning is, I think, not far out.
Underground gasification is technically possible (since the 60's) but every time an attempt is made to make it a commercial operation it fails - the idea of carbon capture gives it some green brownie points,(there are serious problems with that technology) but it is still using a finite resource. Its only a stop gap.
The problem with hydrogen is not as a fuel, it has few drawbacks, but storage and transport. (we've been through that).
We have to provide the people of the UK with a secure sustainable reliable cheap supply of electricity.
It is the fundamental fuel that can replace all others.
And while we reduce consumption by increasing efficiency we have to supply enough to power our society. As cleanly as possible.
We also need to recognise that as the environmental problems start to bite we are going to need plentiful cheap energy to power us through to the future.
As I said somewhere else - Its time we started to address the issues as technical problems and get away from the green Doom and Gloom vision.
The greens have defined and publicised the problem.
Now let those who have the necessary skills sort it out.
Nukes are not safe,
How do you decomission them when the oil runs out.
Windscale/Sellafield has 170,000 tonnes of nuclear waste now that we cannot deal with,and brooons we will sort it in 50 years is pure fantasy.
As for letting those that have the necessary skills sort it out.(who are they?).
They dont really exist now do they.
I do hold "doom + gloom" views.
based on facts and data.
But science has taught me there is NO answer
to the energy crisis looming.
Anyone claiming there is cannot prove it.
The mixed and varied attempts are like straws in a hurricane.
The truth is if we live in self sufficient houses.
(no mains grid)(no mains anything)
and all go vegan we can avert the big cull,
This has to be done globally
What are the chances of that?
ps Im prepping for the worst.Better safe than sorry.
