Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

[LongQ]

Let's have a little social politics for a moment.

Solar Energy - who benefits?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805829/An...


Well, those with money and "connections" of course.

Anyone else?

Perhaps the people who plan these subsidy farms should be made to live on them as part of the deal? That would seem to be fair. Plus paying tax at 105% of forecast revenue and 150% on the lost value of any shortfall. At the same time they should be expected to exchange their existing "owned" land on a 1:1 basis for the solar farm land for the duration of its existence and post industrial use recovery period. That would seem like a fair exchange for the subsidy payments.

[powerstroke]

LongQ said:

Let's have a little social politics for a moment.

Solar Energy - who benefits?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805829/An...


Well, those with money and "connections" of course.

Anyone else?

Perhaps the people who plan these subsidy farms should be made to live on them as part of the deal? That would seem to be fair. Plus paying tax at 105% of forecast revenue and 150% on the lost value of any shortfall. At the same time they should be expected to exchange their existing "owned" land on a 1:1 basis for the solar farm land for the duration of its existence and post industrial use recovery period. That would seem like a fair exchange for the subsidy payments.

Surely also its a planing and business rates issue!! ie agricultural to industrial use ????

[turbobloke]

kingofdbrits said:

Man-made climate change is a myth and all efforts to prove its existence have failed, according to Weather Channel founder John Coleman.

There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid

The letter also names four Ph.D. scientists and a further “9,000 other Ph.D. scientists” who “all agree” that “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future,” and that “Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant “greenhouse” gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years.

An excellent article. This was particularly short and sweet, and accurate.

Dr William Happer of Princeton University said:

The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.

[turbobloke]

New role for IPCC High Priests could be more entertaining and require less grant funding

[LongQ]

powerstroke said:

Surely also its a planing and business rates issue!! ie agricultural to industrial use ????

In terms of gaining local support for the execution of the project I totally agree. Local councils of all political colours seem hell bent on converting green field land to commercial use because they see the potential for income to find their vanity schemes. Central government will encourage this as they can then remove their support and the 'savings' will provide flexibility for their own vanity projects.

However it takes someone with access to money and power, by one means or another, to kick the thing into action in the first place. It helps if they don't care about the problems and challenges they present to others.

Locally we are in the middle of a planning proposal application, the remit of national government in this case, for an enormous rail centric distribution centre that will blight use what is currently green field land that actas as a form of buffer zone between some villages and a motorway. On all other sides of the villages we already have industrial use. The local council wants the rates money and the promise of "7000 jobs". Sod the people living locally. The local MP supports this agenda although has not been keen on the HS2 route that would pass within a relatively short distance of his current home though not for another 20 years or so if ever.

I think someone should propose that HS2 is powered entirely by solar power from a 400 meter wide strip of panels running boths sides of the route which should be designed to pass through as many large private estates and MP's back gardans as possible. Then see what they say.

As for the Solstice crew ... why would they need subsidies at all. Just get them to sell give away one or two of their "Estates", no doubt filched from others in earlier centuries, in exchange for the rights to pay to build a non-subsidised solar facility to satisfy their Eco-craving. In other words let them "give something back" if they feel it is so important to do so. Better that than taking something away.

Frankly I would rather hand a wad of money to France to assist with the running cost of their nukes and the building of another interconnect for electricity than keep these descendants of robber barons in the lifestyle to which they feel entitled using backdoor funding.

[mybrainhurts]

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/10/22/...

NHS Wales employs a carbon manager.

If you want your carbon managed, a Welsh hospital is the place for you.

[wc98]

LongQ said:

Let's have a little social politics for a moment.

Solar Energy - who benefits?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805829/An...


Well, those with money and "connections" of course.

Anyone else?

Perhaps the people who plan these subsidy farms should be made to live on them as part of the deal? That would seem to be fair. Plus paying tax at 105% of forecast revenue and 150% on the lost value of any shortfall. At the same time they should be expected to exchange their existing "owned" land on a 1:1 basis for the solar farm land for the duration of its existence and post industrial use recovery period. That would seem like a fair exchange for the subsidy payments.

this is why i pmsl when people claim agw is mainly supported by lefties . the rich and societal elite have benefited (and they are benefits,just far larger than the average long term dole bum will receive ) greatly compared to the average punter. at the outset of subsidies being handed out when feed in tariffs were 45p as opposed to the current 14p or so, it required a decent amount of capital to get involved,it was also not widely advertised until the usual lot got in first,followed by dropping tariffs.

as i said to the bloke trying to sell my father panels a couple of weeks ago,the well heeled and well connected got the good deals, the plebs were left with the dregs,as usual.

as an aside ,did anyone hear ed davey on the bbc the other day, my televison was close to going out the window. it has got to the stage whenever i hear his voice my blood pressure goes through the roof, he really must be the most incompetent insidious lying piece of st to ever grace parliament.

Edited by wc98 on Sunday 26th October 00:06

[mondeoman]

LongQ said:

Let's have a little social politics for a moment.

Solar Energy - who benefits?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805829/An...


Well, those with money and "connections" of course.

Anyone else?

Perhaps the people who plan these subsidy farms should be made to live on them as part of the deal? That would seem to be fair. Plus paying tax at 105% of forecast revenue and 150% on the lost value of any shortfall. At the same time they should be expected to exchange their existing "owned" land on a 1:1 basis for the solar farm land for the duration of its existence and post industrial use recovery period. That would seem like a fair exchange for the subsidy payments.

8.5 megawatts over 25years? That's a paltry 3000kW a year. That's about enough for ,what, about 3 homes? Funking mental!

[Scuffers]

mondeoman said:

8.5 megawatts over 25years? That's a paltry 3000kW a year. That's about enough for ,what, about 3 homes? Funking mental!

this you may have miss read that?

way I read it, they are saying it's 8.5Mw capacity

Typical panels are ~250w each, and are 1x1.7M dimensions, most 'farms' use them on 2 high frames, some 50 wide, so 100 panels per frame, these then cover a strip of land 50M wide and (varies a bit) 5m wide - so ~250M2 per frame giving ~25Kw of panel

1 acre - 4,046M2, so you can fit some 16 frames per acre = 400Kw
40 acres then is some 16Mw (assuming you can stack them that densely and your using 250w panels, and the inverters are efficent, etc etc).

so, the 8.5Mw is probably possible?

then you get to what they are actually going to produce, and this is what the industry state:

For most of the UK there are approx. 4-5 peak sun hours in Summer reducing to 1 hour in Winter.1 sq metre of PV module ~ 115Wp 1 kWp of well sited PV array in the UK will produce 700-800 kWh of electricity per year.

so that's 7-800Kwh per 1Kw of panel (ie, average of just over 2 hours a day of peak sunlight)

8.5Mw of panel thus = ~6.37Gwh PA

so, yes, still something wrong with the numbers...

[Mr GrimNasty]

The French national grid status page has metered solar which is quite interesting to see how it performs through the day and over the year.

On another note, nothing particularly new, but the DM has done an article on green blob money trail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807849/EX...

[turbobloke]

Mr GrimNasty said:

The French national grid status page has metered solar which is quite interesting to see how it performs through the day and over the year.

On another note, nothing particularly new, but the DM has done an article on green blob money trail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807849/EX...

Article said:

Current energy policies shaped by the Green Blob will cost up to £400billion

Didn't a former member of gov't indicate - as already calculated elsewhere - that the cost is at least £1.3trillion?

It may depend on what you include in 'policies shaped by the green blob' but even so the total seems way too low.

[Mr GrimNasty]

It's very much a guesstimate I expect, there are so many factors, also they probably don't want to give a even whiff of exaggeration for fear of ridicule.

[mybrainhurts]

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/10/26/...

Oh dear, we have a new Environment Secretary....Elizabeth Truss. Watch her perform here.

I'm a bit lost now. How does Ed Davey fit into this structure and to whom does he answer?

[powerstroke]

mybrainhurts said:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/10/26/...

Oh dear, we have a new Environment Secretary....Elizabeth Truss. Watch her perform here.

I'm a bit lost now. How does Ed Davey fit into this structure and to whom does he answer?

They will make a great double act????
And to think we were relishing the demise of Huhne ..

[chris watton]

powerstroke said:

mybrainhurts said:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/10/26/...

Oh dear, we have a new Environment Secretary....Elizabeth Truss. Watch her perform here.

I'm a bit lost now. How does Ed Davey fit into this structure and to whom does he answer?

They will make a great double act????
And to think we were relishing the demise of Huhne ..

And some people on here wonder why some of us would never vote for Cameron!

Judge him by his actions, not his words.

[Mr GrimNasty]

mybrainhurts said:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/10/26/...

Oh dear, we have a new Environment Secretary....Elizabeth Truss. Watch her perform here.

I'm a bit lost now. How does Ed Davey fit into this structure and to whom does he answer?

I love the way she kept saying 'Andreeeeeeeeew', in a deprecating way every time he challenged her!

[steveatesh]

Interesting article on the Adam Smith Institute site completely reinforcing the fact that windmills are insufficient for a viable energy policy:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/t...

The author of the report also had a quick article on Conservative Home too this morning:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thinktankcentral/2...

It's open for comments.

[turbobloke]

steveatesh said:

Interesting article on the Adam Smith Institute site completely reinforcing the fact that windmills are insufficient for a viable energy policy:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/t...

This extract neatly summarises the current madness afflicting many politicians.

Adam Smith Institute said:

Dr Capell Aris has analysed the data on wind speed and direction collected from a total of 43 sites across the UK (22), Ireland and northern Europe over a period of nine years. He then used this data to calculate the output of a fleet of wind farms. The results will be no surprise to anyone who has looked at this topic in any detail: output is highly variable, and the entire fleet would only produce 80% or more of its rated output for about one week a year. The problem is that, however much we hear about wind being a free resource and the cost of equipment coming down, the effect of adding more and more wind turbines to the electricity grid is to push prices up with only a modest impact on carbon dioxide emissions (the whole reason for current policy) and no improvement in energy security.

steveatesh said:

The author of the report also had a quick article on Conservative Home too this morning:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thinktankcentral/2...

It's open for comments.

The first two comments do a good job! The third is curious in a bland way.

[steveatesh]

turbobloke said:

The first two comments do a good job! The third is curious in a bland way.

Hmmm, first poster VFR, isn't that a motorcycle, perhaps by somebody with an interest in all things motor orientated?
The second is a regular poster on Bishophill where I posted the link too.

[turbobloke]

steveatesh said:

turbobloke said:

The first two comments do a good job! The third is curious in a bland way.

Hmmm, first poster VFR, isn't that a motorcycle, perhaps by somebody with an interest in all things motor orientated?
The second is a regular poster on Bishophill where I posted the link too.