This while saying one thing highlights how flimsy and underfunded the evidence for the AGW lobby really is compared to the funding for its propaganda machine.
If you read that essay carefully, you'll find that it gives strong support to two of the reasons I have repeatedly given
as to why the underlying science behind the man-made global warming theory cannot be dismissed as "driven by vested interests", which is what you would have us believe.
Firstly it clearly shows that none of the funding for Revelle's and Keeling's work, to establish the amount and rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 and the rate of absorbtion of CO2 by the oceans, can possibly be said to have come from a source that had a vested interest in proving or exaggerating the human element of climate change. In fact it shows that they had a really hard time getting funding from anybody!
Secondly it shows that the principal "vested interest" that affected their work came form the Regan administration's desire to suppress their findings:
Quote:
In 1981, Ronald Reagan became President, eager to suppress "alarmist" environmentalism. Reagan's Secretary of Energy (a former governor of South Carolina, trained as a dentist) told people that there was no real global warming problem at all...
To the dismay of the Department's own mid-level scientist-administrators, its new leadership announced plans to sharply reduce funding for climate research. In particular, they would entirely terminate DOE's funding of CO2 monitoring. Slade, undercut by criticism of his administrative methods, was peremptorily removed from his post (Frieman too was forced out).
and
Quote:
Under the early Reagan administration, top officials not only rejected unwelcome advice, but actively sought to suppress research that might lead to further unwelcome advice.
Therein lies the birth of climate change denial.
And as for your "carbon balance sheet", we already have one, based on work such as that of Revelle and Keeling and many others. Do you think that the IPCC just made it up?
My challenge stands: You assert that this "balance sheet" is wrong because there are sources and sinks, research into which has been suppressed by those who have a vested interest in exaggerating man-made GW. If that assertion has any validity, you should be able to tell me exactly what sources and sinks and what gases you think haven't been "properly researched". Provided they actually exist, I'll have a go at proving you wrong.
Providor, I can’t pretend to be up to speed on all the postings and the data they point towards in this and other threads. Life’s too short! Someone with the time and resources could make a strong case either way. There are some very bright people (much more so than I am) who reach contradicting positions. But even if consensus on precise causes is impossible, should that stop us concentrating on obvious problems that we seem to agree need fixing?
My focus on the wind farce at least deals with measurable information without the need to make imperfect projections and assumptions. Who can blame you declining a wild goose chase until the nature of the goose has been defined … but if I understand at least part of what Roverdc is saying, he makes a fair point that hidden agendas are, by their nature, hidden.
Roverdc
Quote:
This as I tried to say before is one totally unimportant aspect of environment based on a con instead of proper measurements compared to much more immediate and definitely more important aspects like health , crime , green belt preservation, population levels etc which are important.
Any chance of brokering a peace deal here where you both beg to differ and move on? :-)
Driving past the Human Genome Campus near Cambridge today reminded me of a visit there in 2006. The opportunity arose during Architecture Week to be shown around the new Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute extension by the chief architect. It was opened by the Princess Royal and shortlisted for a RIBA Award for 2006.
First stop was a vast pavilion close to the road, with dramatic, curved roof. The local Hinxton villagers were concerned about visual impact and the design team decided on a living roof surface of Alpine Sedum that is able to draw moisture as needed through a rain retention system. Its colours change with the seasons and enhance what is already a beautiful setting. It attracts butterflies and other insects.
During the tour questions were invited. I asked about PV or other forms of solar collection for the other, very large conventionally roofed new buildings – convinced that such a flagship development would have incorporated state-of-the-art renewables technology. There was a pregnant pause of the Basil Fawlty, Manuel kind. The architect didn’t actually say “Ke” but might just as well have. I hope my jaw didn’t drop too noticeably.
When we reached the Data Centre, said to host some of the UK's most powerful computers, the liquid cooling system was proudly described. But I bit my tongue rather than ask about heat recovery. It was not mentioned.
The buildings, with so much attention to architectural detail, are truly magnificent. But if the lack of environmental concern is also commonplace in less prestigious buildings than this, no wonder the UK is lagging behind other European countries.
Thanks for the Sarkozy update Lizabeth. Let’s very much hope our government has taken note and will follow suit.
This makes a number of fair points:
Quote:
1. Claims of onshore load factors approaching 40% have had to be cut back to the 28% UK average.
Yield reduction to 0.7
2. Currently, BWEA is forced to admit on its website that it has wrongly been claiming coal-fired displacement of CO2. At least twice the correct amount
Yield reduction to 0.5
3. In service turbines get coated in 'gwuck' - insects, salt spray, impacted dust etc, with massive efficiency loss.
Yield reduction - average between cleanings to say 0.75
Thus 0.7 x 0.5 x 0.75 = 0.26
So the promise (premise) on which the DTI originally plucked numbers from the wind was wrong and the yield of electricity and saving of CO2 emission will be no more than about a quarter of the early best estimates.
And that is based on MWh for MWh displacement which the industry now admits is not so, and with no allowance for backup, which very senior figures in the power industry agree to be necessary.
How much do these wind monsters actually contribute to problem solving?
Anything?
A large number of bats are killed by wind turbines. They are supposed to be protected by law. Are bats chasing the insects heading for turbine blades? It’s a reasonable assumption.
Providor I did not asert it was wrong merely that is was so small a sample and so statistically insignificant a base that in a normal commercial application it would be classified as criminal misrepresentation to use it at all.
Why do normal standards of integrity in both data capture and data presentation not have to apply to something that has such a huge destructive impact on all our lives?
This study and the few I have found show us that only a woeful number of sites have been used and a miserably funded effort made whereas millions of pounds dollars euros and many other currencies poured into the effort to brainwash us into believing it this farce.
To be valid you should be able to point to at least a hundred similar studies and you cannot because they do not exist or at least after much searching I can find little or no trace of any results. It is all theory based on the best way of decieving and no substance. End of discussion.
AGW is just hot air from fossils and not of the fuel variety.
Quote:
The buildings, with so much attention to architectural detail, are truly magnificent.
So they enhance the environment in a different way that is more important than saving a bit of CO2.
The buildings, with so much attention to architectural detail, are truly magnificent.
So they enhance the environment in a different way that is more important than saving a bit of CO2.
Wasting finite fuel isn’t a good thing. The savings potential over the life of these large buildings is significant. If many architects are failing to design energy-efficiently, the cumulative waste is highly significant.
The buildings in question wouldn’t stop being magnificent if they were energy-efficient. That’s why I regard it as a missed opportunity.
But even if consensus on precise causes is impossible, should that stop us concentrating on obvious problems that we seem to agree need fixing?
In an ideal world it shouldn't, but unfortunately it does! My position is and always has been that the precise causes of climate change, whilst being rivetingly interesting to a lifelong science anorak like me, are pretty irrelevant in the wider scheme of things. There are plenty of other very good reasons to control population, reduce waste, conserve finite resources and generally treat the planet and its inhabitants with respect. Since in the case of fossil fuels there is almost 100% coincidence between the action needed to achieve those aims and the proposed solution to human-induced climate change, it really doesn't matter whether we are responsible for climate change or not. If we switch to a sustainable, low-carbon economy and global warming keeps right on happening anyway, the sceptics will all say "I told you so!" but at least we'll have some resources left to adapt to the consequences. And if we do that and GW diminishes or stops, the sceptics will still say "I told you so!" because it will have in their eyes vindicated their contention that it's all part of a natural cycle. So in fact being a sceptic is actually pretty smart if we take the sustainable low-carbon path, because you can convince yourself that you were right all along however it eventually turns out!
But if the sceptics gain the upper hand and as a result we take the "business as usual" path, and the climate catastrophe comes to pass as feared, we may not by then have enough resources left to dig ourselves out of the hole.
Quote:
Any chance of brokering a peace deal here where you both beg to differ and move on?
We've actually done that several times already, but it keeps breaking out again! Roverdc can't resist bringing it into every energy- or environment- related thread even when the OP requests otherwise, and I stubbornly refuse to let him or anybody else get away with posting stuff that doesn't appear to me to stand up to objective scientific scrutiny! But don't worry, on the whole the energy/environment debate seems to be reasonably fruitful anyway, don't you think?
The buildings, with so much attention to architectural detail, are truly magnificent. But if the lack of environmental concern is also commonplace in less prestigious buildings than this, no wonder the UK is lagging behind other European countries.
I've been to the Sanger Institute myself a couple of times, but not since the new bit was opened. Amazing place!
I posted a comment on the "Manifesto for the Environment" thread earlier today about this very issue. It's high time that the planning authorities were given the power and the obligation to decline permission for any buildings that do not make the most of any opportunities to reduce their environmental impact, especially in the area of energy efficiency and fossil fuel demand. We have wasted years when we could have been doing this, because the Govt seems scared of taking on the powerful but ultra-conservative construction industry.
But don't worry, on the whole the energy/environment debate seems to be reasonably fruitful anyway, don't you think?
Agreed. This is a rather good oasis in a desert of apathy. But you must have the sleep needs of Margaret Thatcher to be so omnipresent (plus copious research, work and family commitments) … what are you taking? ;-)
Currently, BWEA is forced to admit on its website that it has wrongly been claiming coal-fired of CO2. At least twice the correct amount
Sorry Posted an answer to this on Howard's Way thread
How many applications have been approved on claiming CO2 emission savings at double the figure they should have used? Will./can anyone challenge those? Surely all new applications will have to use the correct factor.
you must have the sleep needs of Margaret Thatcher
I don't need much, but I can't claim to match Maggie's frugal requirement! Family commitments beginning to wane a bit now, one recently graduated and left home to start work, other two away at uni. Seem to fit it all in somehow, no artificial stimulants necessary. (I don't even drink coffee!)
How many applications have been approved on claiming CO2 emission savings at double the figure they should have used? Will./can anyone challenge those? Surely all new applications will have to use the correct factor.
Wind farm action groups have the cards stacked against them in a number of ways. Ever-increasing pressure on local planners to toe the government (flawed) policy line is a case in point.
This is part of a letter written by a local councillor:
Quote:
Deciding if a planning application is acceptable or not is a legal process open to challenge.
If an application meets the requirements of planning law then a local authority has no choice but to accept it. As with all legal processes this is open to interpretation but when the judgement is made it has to be based on matters that are “material” to the application.
Things that have nothing to do with planning, such as the financial viability of a project or being against it on principal must not influence the decision.
Is this a correct reading of wind farm planning requirements?
I would think there is plenty of uncertainty over the question of what is, and is not, “material”. Emissions can be considered part of the financial viability equation … so not material if the above interpretation of planning requirements is accepted.
Clarification would probably help many people faced with a wind farm proposal.
Does not PPS 22 Renewable energy state a proposal should be environmentally, economically and socially acceptable?
KEY PRINCIPLES from PPS22
1. Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should adhere to the following key principles in their approach to planning for renewable energy:
(i) Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental,economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. (ii) Regional spatial strategies and local development documents should contain policies designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of
renewable energy resources. Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should recognise the full range of renewable energy sources,their differing characteristics, locational requirements and the potential for exploiting them subject to appropriate environmental safeguards.
(iii) At the local level, planning authorities should set out the criteria that will be applied in assessing applications for planning permission for renewable energy projects.
Planning policies that rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of, renewable energy technologies should not be included in regional spatial strategies or local development documents without sufficient reasoned justification. The Government may intervene in the plan making process where it considers that the constraints being proposed by local authorities are too great or have been poorly justified.
(iv) The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given
significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission.
(v) Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should not make assumptions about the technical and commercial feasibility of renewable energy projects (e.g. identifying generalised locations for development based on mean wind speeds). Technological change can mean that sites currently excluded as locations for particular types of renewable energy development may in future be suitable
Turbines at the current heights, 110, metres or more, many close to houses can surely not be environmentally nor socially acceptable. Economically they are viable ony by subsidy. The reason for bulding them was to help combat climate change by reducing CO2 emissions now agreed to be about half the amount claimed when permissiion was granted..
(i) Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.
The words were designed to give the impression of proper protection against inappropriate development but didn’t prevent recent Bradwell-on-Sea and Fullabrook Down wind farm approvals.
If all wind farm planning applications were tested properly against the three requirements, not a single one would be granted.
The rest of PPS22 undoes your highlighted passage. If you read the quote again, this time with the emphasis I have put in, it alters the meaning from how you interpreted it.
Quote:
(i) Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.
In other words, there should be no reason why development isn’t acceptable on the grounds you have highlighted. Call it spin or cunning ambiguity, this is not an environment-friendly policy.
The words were designed to give the impression of proper protection against inappropriate development but didn’t prevent recent Bradwell-on-Sea and Fullabrook Down wind farm approvals.
Actually I was trying to alert people to the key principles of PPS22 and how it appears to give protection as you say.
Key Principle iv is the worrying one
Quote:
(iv) The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission.
Wider environmental and economic benefits can surely be interpreted as they wish
The wind power stations you mention had not a snowball's chance in hell of refusal in my eyes for no other reason than this was set to be the worst year ever for planning acceptance for wind.
In haste sorry and from memory as time is short. My post on 'Howard's Way'13/11 demonstrates the power of BWEA in influencing consultations and the attempts made by Durham Branch*CPRE to point out issues that needed to be addressed. The main was the one vindicated at Fullabrooke, i.e CO2 emissions have been exaggerated for years, about two fold. (We would need double the turbines stated in the planning applications to save the CO2 emissions predicted and many more when when we look at the track record of onshore wind in the North East in particular)
* Note this is Co Durham Branch of CPRE not Regional or National
Quote:
PPS22 Companion Guide, to supplement and offer guidance to PPS22 had no public consultation nor did TNEI's Energy for a New Century which was given such a high profile in this
Providor for all the information available to back it up they may well have done so. To show only the levels at a few spot locations where there is virtually no human presence is meaningless to all but a total bigot committed mindlessly to the cause. Who is to say that the only change is the stacking of CO2 in the polar regions by a wind change from that data?
Show me the same data for samples a maximimum distace of even 100 miles apart for even the major industrial countries in the world let alone the third world and I might be less sceptical. Show me it even for this country.
Given the minute temperature differences compared to the seasonal vatiations even this would not produce data that would be acceptable to anyone but an environmental scientist but would be a feeble start so far totally lacking.
Admit it honestly and stop prevarication you cannot because the information does not exist and as it should be the foundation for the case you are making the case is totally unproven even if right.
Let's still try to remember that other aspects of the environment are both more important and more immediate benefit than this CO2 claptrap and backed by proven needs like quieter aircraft and unspoilt green space for leisure.
To show only the levels at a few spot locations where there is virtually no human presence is meaningless
I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. Levels of what? Greenhouse gases? Temperature? Where are these "few spot locations" you refer to, and what is measured there? I'd really like to understand what your problem is with the data, but it's very hard to discuss this with you when you are so vague. I'd be happy to try and explain things to you, but I just can't get a handle on what it is you want to know!
Recipe for a planning nightmare – no place for democracy
Quote:
"Wider environmental and economic benefits" can surely be interpreted as they wish
What an unbelievable dog’s breakfast the wind farce is. Not long ago, developers wouldn’t touch wind power. Then huge subsidies changed all that. The BWEA backed by a government desperate to meet its Kyoto, and then EU commitments, became busy spreading the gospel based on a false syllogism.
Renewables make environmental sense.
Wind power is a renewable.
Therefore wind power makes environmental sense.
For those unfamiliar with Aristotle’s syllogisms, they work this way:
Quote:
Major premise: A general statement.
Minor premise: A specific statement.
Conclusion: based on the two premises.
There is a difference between truth and validity in syllogisms. A syllogism can be true, but not valid (i.e. make logical sense). It can also be valid but not true.
Example:
All cats have four legs.
A horse has four legs.
Therefore a horse is a cat.
This is precisely the game being played with wind farms at our expense.
When communities across the UK are faced with a proposal and do some basic research, it quickly becomes clear that it is impossible for industrial wind turbines to provide reliable power even with unprecedented subsidies.
Just to put the size of the subsidy into perspective, if it reaches the £32 billion per annum estimate, that will be the same as the 2006/7 UK defence budget. Is this a sane way to spend public money for a pitiful amount of unreliable electricity?
Poorly resourced anti-windfarm action groups (now running into hundreds) are faced with wealthy developers who will make big bucks from subsidies even if they build turbines in stupidly inappropriate places with negligible wind.
If developers’ proposals are rejected by local authorities, there is so much subsidy money washing around that they can afford to appeal, knowing that local authority budgets can ill afford the heavy costs involved.
Quite apart from destroying the quality and character of beautiful countryside for UK residents, turbines inevitably impact on our income from tourism valued in 2005 at £85 billion.
But back to planning.
This government will do anything to be seen to be meeting its emissions targets. It is blind to logic, independent expert opinion, and the democratic process.
Goalposts are moved regularly in the direction of wind – and the December renewables bill can be expected to add some more layers of confusion intended to make local planning democracy even more difficult to operate.
Justice demands a level playing field. Instead, the system is being used to force unwanted and pointless proposals through. The expertise needed to deal with all aspects of wind generation is complex. Planners and elected council members are placed in a very difficult position trying to make sense of the technicalities. It is understandable that they incline towards government and wind industry data, which is all too often factually questionable propaganda.
So I return to the important question of what is classed as “material” in local planning applications for windfarms. And how best can action groups present all the facts so that not only local planners and councillors, but planning appeal inspectors have to take them seriously?
There are wide implications for the planning system’s ability to fulfil its role as protector of town and country if this government assault is allowed to continue.
Windwatch
The crux of the matter is that The Planning System is being changed/manipulated as Economy upstages Environment
First From CPRE website. Planning Disaster Campaign
Quote:
The Treasury has decided that the planning system is a barrier to business. They want to remove what they see as obstacles – including you and your community getting involved.
Our town and country planning system plays a crucial role in protecting our environment and communities. We believe that involvement from local people improves the decisions made and is the key to successful developments. We work to safeguard your rights and to protect your environment.
Quote:
The Treasury has carried out a series of reviews, including the Barker review, on land-use planning. They have recommended major changes to the planning system – cutting you out of the picture.
If the recommendations from these reviews are implemented, it could mean:
oReducing public involvement in inquiries to speed up major projects
oIncreased domination of supermarkets in town centres at the expense of local shops
oReducing your right to have a say in plans
oWildlife, habitats and green belts under threat from development
Quote:
The land use planning system is the powerful and effective form of environmental and social regulation ever introduced in the UK. We need to protect our rights to be involved in local decision-making - but we need your help
.
Secondly from my personal website for which I alone take responsibility
PPS22 Companion Guide (CG) is The 185 page guide that had no public consultation and is used to support the 20 page PPS22
Quote:
In fact I take issue on how PPS22 has evolved
PPS22 CG’s elusiveness worried me, sorry apparent elusiveness. The document must be challenged, using facts and the truth. Particularly in respect to wind energy developments, then mostly onshore
Regional targets have become an obsession. I will concentrate on PPS22 CG Case Studies that are, sorry, that appear feisty and so reiterate my concerns regarding PPS22CG
I admit some case studies appear acceptable and a range of renewables are mentioned. It would be churlish to ignore that a lot of work has been put into this document.
Case Study 6G Beddington Zero Energy Development (BedZED) Sutton. Several renewable technologies have been integrated into one residential development.
The following case studies are of concern
Case study 2D Community Benefits –Awel Aman Tawe (AAT)
Case Study 6E Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK)
Case Study 3B Regional renewable energy planning in North East England
Case Study 3E Publicity about renewable energy. Member training North East. To be piloted with Wear Valley District and Sedgefield Borough Councils
Case Study 2C Renewable Energy Education.
See Howard’s Way Post 15/11 for relevant links
Several Campaigns have been launched over the years, supported by Government to green the public,councillors and MP. I wlll come back later and list those.
The only answer to this democratic deficit is to remove the subsidy for onshore wind as suggested in the Goldsmith/Gummer report/
Cameron could be considering this report but Brown is in charge .......
19/02/07 article in the New Statesman -
A corrupt system that affects us all
I am not suggesting your council will accept a bribe to nod through your rear extension
newstatesman.com/200702190020-
Swiftly followed by a request form RTPI to their members/conference attendees to respond to the New Statesman
I am not surewhether the e mail was confidential or not so the actual content I will not post
I would never have guessed how much of a stir this thread would cause when I created it!
My head is too tired and fuzzy to take in or even understand this vast amount of text, but I'm glad to see all this informed discussion going on. :D
Votedave says "he is glad to see all this informed discussion going on". So am I and hoped to see it continue without much input from me so sorry for the 'vast amount of text' on my behalf
I have answered the query from Windwatch* in a post on Howard's Way' " ....the important question of what is classed as “material” in local planning applications for windfarms".
Thank you for the thread which I will continue to read
Some incidents seem easily forgotten if noticed in the first place Here's one I missed earlier
Asa adjudications Nov21st 2007
Ad A magazine ad, for Juice electricity supplied by npower, was headlined
Quote:
"npower, the green energy behind concerts at Wembley Stadium".
Text continued "We're the Official Energy Supplier to Wembley Stadium - powering the arch and stadium with renewable energy
Assessment Because the footnote in the ad did not explain that energy was supplied to Wembley Stadium via the National Grid, we considered that many consumers would not understand that renewable energy was not directly responsible for power at the stadium but was supplied to the National Grid via a certificates trading system.
Quote:
The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.1 (Environmental claims)
Action
The ad should not be shown again in its current form.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)
Link to full report
asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_43563.html
Full report here
Note: A previous ASA adjudication in 2005 had examined the issue of emissions factors and concluded, on the available evidence, that 860g CO2/kWh was an appropriate emissions factor for wind power. However, we also noted the complainant's assertion that the situation had now changed. We therefore consulted the National Grid, which produced the SYS, for their view.
Adjudication
We noted that Npower had followed previously accepted advice and used the 860g CO2/kWh figure. Although we welcomed their efforts to ensure that their claim was based on an established figure,
Quote:
we nonetheless considered that that figure was no longer representative of the UK electricity generating mix. We therefore concluded that the carbon offset claim was inaccurate and likely to mislead.
The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.3 (Environmental claims).
Quote:
We told Npower to ensure that future carbon savings claims were based on a more representative and rigorous carbon emissions factor.
