EXCLUSIVE: The main thing being produced by UK offshore Wind Farms – RUST….and CO2

Another Whitehall SNAFU: maintenance costs to sky-rocket as the negatives of offshore wind power bubble to the surface

offshoreturdThe rusty white elephant leaves the room….to pollute our oceans. What a mess this is.

There is a private ‘arbitration’ case going through an English arbitration court at the moment. The 1996 Act passed to enable such things is basically a way to free up Court time taken up by complex technical disputes….and, dare I say it, keep prying eyes away from what’s going on. It involves two very large supply organisations. And from the sidelines, DEFRA is looking on with a growing sense of anxiety.

Britain blasted into offshore wind farms, and then upped the pace of it after being put on the naughty step by Brussels for not turning the entire country into a fart-recycling plant. In their haste to do Master’s bidding, the Mandarins of Whitehall called in some structural engineers, who gave them (on the whole) some sound advice about the height increase and structural bulwarking necessary for ocean use. But our fine men from the Ministry didn’t ask a metals expert to comment. Had they done so, they might have been reminded about something: steel and salt water are not the best of friends.

Cast your net widely enough, and you will find a lot of stuff going through the arbitration Courts about wind farms. Setting aside the mountain range of data showing that the damn things are noisy, unsightly, insanely unreliable as a form of generation – and can never pay back – some of the intrinsic problems within this entire madcap project do tend to raise the eyebrows somewhat.

In May this year, the developer of the giant Greater Gabbard offshore wind farm GGOWL finally resolved the long-running contractual dispute with engineering firm Fluor Ltd over concerns relating to the foundations of turbines. Out of 140 turbines, 52 – that’s 35% – had faulty foundations. That’s a bit of a drawback in the offshore business.

In Canada, propeller-supplier Windstream is in  dispute with Liberal Government there over its proposed 300-megawatt wind project in eastern Lake Ontario, off Wolfe Island. The case is expected to cost the taxpayer £200m ‘and perhaps three times as much as that’. The dispute is basically about energy shortfalls in practice, and the slow speed of project development.

In March – despite the growing evidence of lacklustre performance and high maintenance/replacement costs – the Government decided to massively upweight the Walney Offshire farm. This also, of course, gave its fab new Green Investment Bank its first participation as lender to a large project refinancing. Note the word ‘re’ there: Walney needs another £250m of investment capital in order to increase the output from a generative form which is hopelessly inefficient and horribly expensive.

Britain now has the two biggest wind farms in the world. But in a hot, largely windless spell such as the one we’re experiencing now, they will of course produce, um, diddly-squat. Just the sort of cutting-edge 21st century, constantly reliable electricity generation system we need….with the rest of it owned privately by French company EDF. Oh to be British in 2013.

But very few people have cottoned on to the maintenance cost of these, the only type of ‘farm’ in the world that produces barely enough to keep body and soul together outside of hurricane conditions. They’re bad enough on land; but when the Mandarins ‘equip’ turbines for sea use by calculating structural requirement alone – making little allowance for saltwater erosion of the structure – things can quickly become critical. And this appears to be happening right now.

A source close to the matter comments:

“When UK Wind Farms started going offshore, much of the same mast technology (and where and how it is attached to the base) that was used on land, was just scaled up for the bigger ones out at sea.  The sea and spray has already proved considerably more corrosive than was anticipated, which will either lead to massive additional maintenance costs, or a much shorter life for these offshore wind farms.  In either case, it will do no good at all to the viable economics of generating electricity from offshore wind farms.”

Metal experts are giving evidence to the latest piece of arbitration about offshore in London this week. This is what I have been able to dig up thus far about the case: corrosion protection is always the last step during a turbine production process. The early versions for the North Sea are woefully under-protected (thanks to Sir Humphrey) and the second wave was skimped – thanks to the EU: with the dash to get our renewable numbers up, pressure was, it seems, applied to the paint process to make up for lost time.

At that time, the Environment Secretary was none other than….Ed Miliband. As it happens, I actually attended the key Commons debate with partners in crime Anna Raccoon and Old Holborn. Mr Miliband told the media at the time that “opposition to wind farms is socially unacceptable” – another bit of classic New Labour pc assertion.

The Secretary of State concerned today, badger-gassing Owen Paterson, is in no doubt at all about inland viability. He told Farmer’s Weekly last year that such developments don’t work because “there is no wind there”. Owen didn’t get where he is today without knowing a flaw when he sees one.

“I don’t personally think that inland wind farms are effective at reducing carbon,” he continued, “I don’t even think they are effective at producing energy.” Not sure about the first one there myself (not even sure it’s relevant) but he is spot on with his second observation.

So presumably then, he is more amenable to the idea of offshore…..we have to assume this, otherwise why triple the size of Walney? Yes? Er, no actually. Even where there is wind, says Mr Paterson now, nearly a year on, they’re all “a complete scam”.

Is the correct answer. But we’re building more of them. And Owen’s judgement is, even at that level, only a fraction of the real ecological problem here.

Read what follows and weep.

The term ‘blue carbon’ is relatively unheard-of, but its environmental importance is unrivalled. Blue carbon stores are the peatlands of the sea—natural carbon ‘sinks’ that absorb and store millions of tonnes of carbon. Every day, 22 million metric tonnes of CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. An estimated 55% of all carbon in the atmosphere which becomes sequestered in natural systems is cycled into our seas. Blue carbon ecosystems, which include seagrass meadows, kelp forests, saltmarshes and mangrove swamps, store up to 70% of the carbon permanently in the sea, and Scottish waters are home to over 20% of all seagrass meadows in north-west Europe.

Despite their importance, around 2-7% of global blue carbon sinks are lost annually. The rate of loss can be four times that of rainforests. Building massive turbines near such resources exacerbates the damage  – and releases huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now speaking for myself here, I am sceptical about the role of CO2 as the key issue around climate change, and what climate change will or won’t do. I’m tired of the pointless, mud-slinging two-sets-of-looneys debate going on – and like most people I’m not sceptical so much as agnostic: I just don’t know what it all means because the ecosphere as a subject is more complex than sub-atomic physics.

But my hunch at the moment is that oceans and how they change are key to a better understanding of what happens. So here we have a project designed to generate electricity cost-effectively and reduce carbon dioxide output, opposition to which is described by the now Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition as “socially unacceptable”. Not only was he arrogantly wrong about that, the thing he set in motion fails to achieve its first objective, and works diametrically against its second goal.

Meanwhile, it’s all a bit arse and elbow over there at Defra: and once these corrosion cases start to leak out, Mr Paterson is going to have a crisis on his hands to make Bovine TB seem like a walk in the park by comparison.

This is a cock-up of potentially massive proportions. We have an Environment Secretary talking out of both sides of his mouth to appease the LibDem Nettle beer brewers, investing vast amounts on offshore wind farms which don’t work, have an inbuilt corrosion problem thanks to the Mandarins, disturb allegedly important marine ecology, and desecrate world heritage sites. For example, the Dorset Jurassic Coast’s world heritage status is under threat thanks to the proposed 333-turbine Navitus Bay Wind Park.

But the main UXB worrying sapper Paterson this morning, I’d wager, is the corrosion scandal. It is shaping up to be one of the worst cases of shambolic Whitehall amateurism in many a long year. There are 25 major offshore wind farms currently operational, ten under construction, and ten more in planning. That’s 2,337 turbine already rotting away in the sea, and possibly also built with dodgy foundations. Another 4,000+ are planned to be up and running (or not, depending on the weather) by 2018.

In 2012, TOTAL wind-powered generation – 19.4 TW·h of energy –  contributed just 5.3% to the UK’s electricity requirement. The most optimistic forecasters expect the total to reach no more than 11% after all the planned work has gone ahead – if it does, given Owen Patercake’s shall we say somewhat equivocal attitude to them. The Offshore turbines at the moment produce….drumroll….just 0.4% of our output.

The investment in wind power costs the UK £120 billion per year. Despite a number of badly-informed and enthusiastic rather than empirical goes at alternative energy sourcing, Defra reported in 2009 that the UK’s carbon footprint was actually 20% greater than in 1990. This is all clearly terrific value for money, then. Certainly puts Draper Osborne’s fabric-f**king £18bn of cuts into perspective.

Meanwhile, 2,337 turbines are already out there….rusting away at an alarming rate. The Scottish Government recently accused Westminster of creating “a vast, rusty electricity station in the North Sea”. But I doubt if they really know the full extent of the problem.

Metal experts are giving evidence to the latest piece of arbitration court argey-bargey about offshore in London this week. Top marks go to the first MSM hack who works out who’s involved, where it is, and the size of repair/write-off problem now facing Defra.

£120bn a year to achieve nothing beyond a generation share in single figure percentages. Over 6000 turbines round our cost producing, at best, perhaps 2.5% of our energy requirements. This is Whitehall incompetence, this is Westminister fudge and muddle, but chiefly this is our money.

In my unaligned disrespect for all things Westminster and Whitehall, I am reminded yet again that all of us are unemployed, short of money, stuck in traffic jams, sticking garbage in 47 boxes, and paying arbitrarily high taxes because daft ideas based on bent evidence were put into action, and then screwed up bigtime. Be it Defra, theDfT, the NHS, Labour, Tory, town hall or Whitehall the ruling class in this country are, almost entirely, devoted worshippers at the penis of Onan.

Yes, it turned out to be true after all: wanking makes you blind.

Last night at The Slog: Serving up small-fry paedophiles while the sharks swim happily unmolested in the sea

55 thoughts on “EXCLUSIVE: The main thing being produced by UK offshore Wind Farms – RUST….and CO2

  1. This is the other aspect you don’t seem to have elaborated on JW. Wind being inconsistent needs back-up and since when was diesel a ‘green’ energy. We are all being truly ripped off financially but none more than the ecoloons who are being ripped off ideologically as well! Perhaps this will have a bearing on your agnosticism?


  2. Don Quixote had nothing on the Mad Mullahs of Westminster, Whitehall and Brussels when it comes to green energy. Green, after all, is the colour of Islam.

    With respect to the wanking issue, the answer is to stop when you need glasses. Bit like Keynes, when you are in a hole stop digging.


  3. There is something particularly pernicious about a process where corporate interests of developers align so strongly with state diktat that hare-brained schemes like wind farms crush both opposition and common sense.

    Someone needs to come up with a word for that.


  4. A number of years ago, I helped shareholders that were ripped off by a market abuse get their money back. I then helped some shareholders who were victims of a fraud get most of their money returned. In between, I was approached by a group of shareholders whose company had placed in receivership. They were very unhappy that the directors (one of who was former PM John Major) had run a successful company into the ground by over-extending themselves. You may know this company, it was called the Mayflower Corporation.

    Mayflower produced buses. In fact they produced the majority of buses used in the UK (under the name Plaxton) and even the big yellow buses famously used for school runs in the United States. They also produced fire engines under the name Dennis. I doubt that there are many on these boards who would not be familiar with Dennis.

    The directors wanted to branch out into other areas and thought that constructing wind-farms would be a good idea. So they spent £55m building a state of the art ship capable of building wind farms at sea. You might know this ship, because nearly every wind farm currently in use in the UK was built using it!

    The investment in this ship finally sent the company to the wall. The accounts people were very creative and even managed to fool the auditors with an accounting ‘black hole’ where all debts that could not be settled were funnelled. However, eventually the black hole grew so big that it could not be hidden and swallowed the entire company.

    The ship, the Mayflower Resolution was sold at a bargain basement price (I believe it was £20m) to a employees / management consortium who convinced some merchant backers that they would have work for the ship for the foreseeable future. They were right.

    The sad thing is that it was criminal financial jiggery pokery by the accountants and the directors which allowed the company to go to the wall. Although Mayflower had a ready market in the UK, they were being undercut by foreign competitors and this was crippling them, Combine that with the flagrant overspend on Mayflower Resolution, which they originally intended only to cost £25m, but hit over double that and there was no chance for the company.

    Mayflower Resolution has been in continuous operation ever since. They even featured it in a programme on Discovery channel about unusual ships. You might have seen this programme on Quest channel in the UK.

    John is completely right in that the idiots in Whitehall have been pushing the windfarm agenda to cover their posteriors for not meeting their Kyoto & EU promises. If they had only stopped and thought about it for a while, they would have realised that the wind does not always blow, but….

    Time & Tide Wait For No Man.


  5. Having worked in a Research Laboratory on Marine equipment design, I suspect that the scouring of the sea at the base of the turbines will, eventually, be the greater problem. The rust problem can be ‘hidden’, but towers at drunken angles will be very visible.
    I give them 10 years.


  6. As any experienced Engineer knows, the primary assessment in any design phase is an environmental study. This is the basis on which structural, equipment selection and operating parameters are based. This initial phase is known as FEED . (FRONT END ENGINEERING DESIGN.)
    The predominant wind direction and velocities are recorded , tidal and sea conditions ,average and max /min temperature conditions., seabed geological conditions are all assessed.
    From these assessments, the stresses on a structure can be calculated and allowance made for the most severe condition, and the lifespan of a structure can be designed into the system.
    This has been done for hundreds of years into the design of ships , lighthouses and from the ‘60s into the design of offshore oil/gas producing rigs. It is not rocket science, it has all been done before.
    Modern material science has improved the quality of steel, Cement and anti-corrosion paints, to greatly alleviate the corrosive and scouring effects of seawater. There are also many systems to reduce the effects of marine growth by molluscs (MGPS) (Marine growth protection systems). Also there are Cathodic protection systems which neutralize the corrosive and scouring effect of seawater on a steel hull or casing.
    I fail to understand why the UK, with its hundreds of years experience of Marine and Naval Engineering has had difficulty in designing something as simple as the foundations of a Wind Turbine.
    Maybe we got too many bankers and all the Engineers are working under some smelly railway arch, in their greasy coveralls, with their heads stuck under the bonnet of a Morris Minor. (sic)


  7. The UK may well have a rich history of marine and naval engineering but the skills and experience has been lost having failed to be passed on to younger generations. Since the 1970’s we have rapidly abandoned our engineering and industrial heritage, the skills have now largely passed out of living memory. The UK has become a low paid low skilled nation of serfs. Just look at the expensive ongoing comedy of the Royal Navy’s joke aircraft carriers being built at Rosyth. The British taxpayer is now paying considerably more for each of these ships then the US pays for its fully armoured nuclear strike aircraft carriers which are almost twice the size. These ships have become so expensive that the MOD cannot afford enough aircraft to operate them. There is also the fiasco of the fitting of catapults (something which should have been done in the first place). The design spec said easily convertible to catapult use but this has not been possible without adding billions of pounds to the already stupidly inflated build cost. No wonder Cunard ordered the Queen Mary 2 from a shipyard in France fearful of ending up in the middle of an expensive novice British shipbuilding fiasco.
    Who would have believed 100 years ago on the eve of World War 1 after the biggest naval arms race in history (comfortably won by British shipbuilding) that Britain would today have become so incompetent and inept in one of its once greatest industries.


  8. The cheapest fuel in the world is coal and it has got cheaper with the availability of shale gas. The UK is largely made of coal; we have good reserves. The University of Ohio has developed the means of extracting the energy from coal without burning. It is efficient; affordable and traps 90% of the carbon — truely green. And it can be retrofitted to existing coal-fired stations.
    The American government is building a full size power station and the Germans are now up for it. But since none of our politicians and most of the Green movement don’t have an engineering GCSE between them, they will continue to follow the wind turbine route.
    I explained this to my local MP who told me the facts don’t count. To paraphrase. If the energy cost a penny a Kwh; released nil C02; provided round the clock energy and involved building no new power stations then the LibDems would still be against it. They believe that because the wind and sun are free then wind turbines plus solar panels equal free energy.
    God preserve us from such ignorance


  9. +1. Do we have any engineers now? I was told in no uncertain terms at a dinner party that Media Studies were more essential,(for study at university) as communications were in the forefront of advanced technology. How sad it all is, & I get the feeling that I am the only one of my aquaintance who gives a d…n.


  10. Pingback: John Ward – Exclusive : The Main Thing Being Produced By UK Offshore Wind Farms – Rust…And CO2 – 11 July 2013 | Lucas 2012 Infos

  11. There is probably no worse case of crony capitalism than this windfarm scam and should be taught in school about the weaknesses inherent in the human being.
    It depresses me when things don´t always rhyme in the wider world with what I know about the people in my immediate circle and I often need to take a break from these monsters in the daily newspapers in order to concentrate on more positive activities….When I see a Tim Yeo in my mind´s eye, I see severed heads used as footballs in a Mad Max landscape.The guy who called windmills a tourist attraction I see being eaten alive by Tina Turner and when I read that they´ve doctored emails at state sponsored universities I see Arnold terminating the m***erf**kers


  12. It was an interesting article, but I have a few problems with it. Firstly it does not take into account that the tide progresses as a wave across the UK, so slack water at say Penzance will not be the same as slack water in Southend. You can verify this by looking at this website:


    For Penzance today 11/07/13:
    Low Tide 01:43 (1.10m)
    High Tide 07:17 (5.10m)
    Low Tide 13:53 (1.20m)
    High Tide 19:33 (5.30m

    For Southend today 11/07/13:
    High Tide 03:07 (5.70m)
    Low Tide 09:02 (0.90m)
    High Tide 15:25 (5.60m)
    Low Tide 21:41 (0.50m)

    So you see, 2 different tidal power stations at each end of the country would not stop generating at the same time.

    In fact, the United Kingdom has some pretty unique tidal flows due to the influence of the North Atlantic current and the natural bottlenecks of the English channel, the Bristol channel and the Irish Sea which causes the water to bunch up whilst it flows through the narrows. The weirdest tides of all are in the Solent, where there are 2 bottlenecks on top of being connected to the English Channel and its bottleneck at Dover.

    The second error is to suggest that Denmark’s failure to generate significant quantities of wind electrical power would be the same for the UK. The spokesperson who said that it was rare for the UK to have days with no wind at all was actually truthful. The UK is located at the edge of the continental shelf, whereas Denmark is much further from the North Atlantic. Wind is generated by the sun heat collected by the oceans. This causes temperature differentials, as well as evaporation of water which is stored energy. These weather patterns follow a semi-predictable path across the Atlantic towards Northern Europe. France (Biscay), Ireland and the UK experience the strongest winds from this weather. That’s why the government were so keen to locate the largest turbines on land on the Isle of Lewis. Right in the path of some of the strongest winds.

    Using pumped water to store energy is useful as a stop gap, but it is never intended to be on continuously. They would only call for it if the demand was high when there was a known shortfall.

    In my view, tidal power stations of the sort suggested by Siemens and other European companies would be far more predictable and have higher generating capacity (because of the strength of water) than any wind farm. More over, they never stop working. If there were farms at locations all around the UK, as there are wind farms at present, then the tidal power would never be fully off. In fact, the loss of power at the slack water sites would be for no longer than 15 to 30 minutes at most and would be at different times as the tides moved across the UK.


  13. If the turbines do indeed rot away, that is the owner’s loss, or the developer’s, not energy users’, as operators are paid per MWh produced with no grant or other support for construction. Of course offshore wind is a new technology and there is a learning curve, and the technology will be improved over time, and costs will reduce while reliability increases.

    When you say the 21stC economy needs steady reliable power, you are getting this upside down – that’s what the 20thC economy needed. We are now in a new age in which grids are being redesigned as networks, and demand is able to respond to supply, not just the other way round. The UK is behind the curve on this but will have to catch up sooner or later.


  14. Pingback: MERKEL’S MURKY PAST: More evidence of her Youth Movement/Stasi past in the DDR | The Slog. 3-D bollocks deconstruction

  15. ”I’m tired of the pointless, mud-slinging two-sets-of-looneys debate going on”

    Isn’t this a false triangulation?

    Although climate change skeptics like to portray the people they oppose as unwashed ‘eco-loons’ / ‘watermellons’ in fact it is 97% of scientists working on the problem and people like Sir Nicholas Stern, former Chief Economist of the World Bank and author of the Stern Review. Friends of the Earth also report that it is businesses which are attending their events in increasing numbers these days.


  16. And of course the equally odious Tim Yeo filling his boots at the taxpayers expense all of course for the sake of the environment.


  17. John, you say:

    “Now speaking for myself here, I am sceptical about the role of CO2 as the key issue around climate change, and what climate change will or won’t do. I’m tired of the pointless, mud-slinging two-sets-of-looneys debate going on – and like most people I’m not sceptical so much as agnostic: I just don’t know what it all means because the ecosphere as a subject is more complex than sub-atomic physics.”

    The science experiments were done and proved over 100 years ago – the gas CO2 in earths atmosphere will act as an insulator and thus a net increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause an overall warmer climate.

    Now, while the science is indeed complicated, the folks over at http://www.skepticalscience.com do a great job of explaining it at all different levels, from a basic overview to the nitty gritty details. There is no reason, other than laziness, to not even attempt to understand the biggest predicament facing the planet.

    (the folks at skeptical science are in no way lunatics and they thow no mud, it’s just information presented in a clear way, they are particularly good at explaining the fallacies and errors thrown around by the true lunatics like Monckton and Watts)


  18. Just had to reply to this, as that is just the worst site I have ever come across for bias. Try these for a different view, but always check facts yourself, based on real measurements (unadulterated). Tallbloke’s is UK based, and great for exploring the frontiers of inquiry.

    John is correct, a long way to go before we start to understand what drives climate. Easy to understand what is going on with ‘green’ power generation, follow the money.


  19. Pingback: EXCLUSIVE: The main thing being produced by UK offshore Wind Farms – RUST….and CO2 | ajmarciniak

  20. If you believe in the ‘truth’ promoted by Sceptical Science then I suggest that this ‘Belief’ is similar to ‘Belief’ in god. I.e. not based on truth, nor experience.


  21. Pingback: The Main Thing Being Produced by UK Offshore Windfarms? Rust and CO2. | Quixotes Last Stand

  22. >>The science experiments were done and proved over 100 years
    >>ago – the gas CO2 in earths atmosphere will act as an insulator
    >>and thus a net increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause an
    >>overall warmer climate.

    Couple of points.

    That experiment and theory predicted a warmer upper troposphere over the tropics, which has never been detected. i.e.: theory fail.

    That theory predicted a warmer climate, but there has been no warming for 17 years. i.e.: prediction fail.

    The truth is that we have been in a cyclical warming phase caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (60-year oscillation) and an increasing Sunspot cycle (various 190-year and millennial oscillations).

    However. The PDO has gone into cold mode recently. The Sunspot cycle has gone into a Grand Minima recently. Both of these phases are associated with cold climates, especially in the northern latitudes of the US and Europe.

    John Ward recently posted about a stab-vest company. I think instead I will be investing in a thermal underwear company.


  23. >>the folks at skeptical science are in no way lunatics and
    >>they thow no mud, it’s just information presented in a
    >>clear way, they are particularly good at explaining the fallacies
    >>and errors thrown around by the true lunatics like Monckton
    >>and Watts

    But the folks at Skeptical Science are economical with the truth. And when you see people being selective about the evidence they present, you know this is no longer science but politics (or a religion).

    A couple of examples (with recent data):

    Antarctic sea ice has been increasing for decades. If you did not know that, then why not?

    Antarctica has been cooling for decades. If you did not know that, then why not?

    (hint: When alarmists say Antarctica is warming, they refer to the Antarctic Peninsular, which represents about 2% of Antarctica.)

    And so on and so on. Almost everything you ever thought you knew about climate and ‘increasingly wild weather’ is actually false. Atlantic hurricanes are decreasing. US tornados are decreasing. Polar bear numbers are increasing. Drone, bore, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………….


  24. >>You seem to be describing the potential woolly
    >>mammoth in the room…..

    A hulking great mammoth. And a mammoth that may well need its wooly coat in 20 years time. But the BBC has undertaken, at their secret 2006 seminar, to promote Global Warming at whatever cost – IN ALL THEIR PROGRAMMING. (Google 28-Gate.) So even light entertainment will be stuffed with global warming and environmental propaganda.

    This decision was not only against the BBC charter for impartiality, it is also non-scientific and is ‘state’ propaganda. It means that the BBC has pledged to promote Global Warming and renewable energy and be selective with the truth – which is why you will never be told that Antarctica is cooling, that Antarctic sea ice is increasing, that Atlantic hurricanes are decreasing etc: etc:

    A list of the attendees at the BBC’s secret seminar is included in some of these articles, the majority of who were NOT scientists.


    This is Tony Newbery, they guy the BBC tried to bury because he wanted to know if the BBC had flaunted its charter of impartiality regarding climate:

    And this is Omnologos. And if you scan down, Tom Weaver demonstrates that the 28 scientists were not scientists at all:



  25. As George Catlin said; The Planet is fine, it’s the people that are fu*ked.
    The biggest problems the people of this planet face is the p.t.b.s’ vested interests which cause ignorance, massive inequality, hunger, wars, poverty, pollution, human suffering, animal suffering………..


  26. I do agree with much of what you say above but on CO2,and its only my un-tutored opinion,but I don’t see how the amount humanity has put into the atmosphere in the last say 100 years cannot have an effect on climate.
    No doubt there are many other factors.
    On salt water corrosion ,I guess anyone who has owned a boat would tell you ,seawater is horrendously corrosive,so no surprises there.
    During that bitter winter a couple of years ago,we recorded minus 17 degrees but very little wind.Turbines were as much use as a chocolate tea pot .
    I do believe you could cover the whole darned country with turbines and still not produce a fraction of what is needed.
    We have the second highest tides in the world around Avonmouth,close to 40ft on springs,that’s twice a day every day.That is a real power source.
    As already posted above ,we sit on millions of tons of coal.Embrace the new technology there too.


  27. Time and tide may wait for no man but they do take great pleasure in breaking and corroding man made structures. I have yet to see a viable solution for tide and wave generators in terms generating capacity, location, environmental impact, longevity and maintenance.


  28. Does anyone who looks at the whole issue of CO2 emmisions
    have a clue just how much CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere?
    0.03 % or 3 x 100ths of one per cent. Wow that is such a lot
    it has risen by less than 0.01 per cent over the last 300 years
    that is why the Global Warming scammers and the climate change loons
    talk about tonnes of it and never ever ever refer to its actual percentage.
    after all if they did, they would reveal themselves for what they are
    liars and scammers. Don’t believe me? google “the constituent parts of air” atmosphere


  29. >>I do agree with much of what you say above but on CO2,and
    >>its only my un-tutored opinion,but I don’t see how the amount
    >>humanity has put into the atmosphere in the last say 100 years
    >>cannot have an effect on climate.

    Because the blanketing effect of CO2 is inversely logarithmic – the more the concentration the less the increasing effect.

    In addition, CO2 is only a trace gas, just 0.0004 of the atmosphere. By far the greatest greenhouse gas (some 95% of the effect) is actually water vapour. Seen any government ministers trying to ban water?? Me neither.

    And water vapour and clouds are ‘poorly modeled in the climate models’, according to those who know. How can you determine future climate, if the greatest denominator in climate is ‘poorly modeled’??

    And lastly, we were almost reaching the minimum CO2 for life to exist on the Earth. It has been suggested that lower than 200ppm CO2, all life on Earth dies. We were dangerously close to that lower level, so it is a GOOD THING we are recharging the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Average CO2 during pre-history was around 1,500 ppm, which is about 4 times current levels. And living things thrived then, because more CO2 = more plant life = more food. How do you think dinosaurs grew so big?




  30. Pingback: SMOKE SIGNALS | The Slog. 3-D bollocks deconstruction

  31. Pingback: EXCLUSIVE: The main thing being produced by UK offshore Wind Farms – RUST….and CO2 | Cornwall Wind Watch

  32. Pingback: Recent Energy And Environmental News – August 5th 2013 | PA Pundits - International

  33. Pingback: We support alternative energies — but not indiscriminately | Mothers Against Wind Turbines Inc.

  34. Pingback: Industrial Wind: The Great American S-WIND-LE: Not Clean, Not Green, Not Free! | citizenpoweralliance

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s