Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wind farms - ugly truths

Options
1…3738404243…47

Comments

  • Options
    #1172
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yes, I have. I have also asked you several times now what specific point you are trying to make by continuously referencing this blog post? Have you even read it? It states that an SEAI report contains flaws. What report doesn’t contain flaws? .html

    You have continuously failed to address any of the flaws outlined - since it does not fit into your simplistic narrative on the subject

    PS: Pretty devastating critique of Europes energy policies in a special climate change edition of this weeks Economist. Germany comes in for special mention and given that the current government here wants to inflict a similar folly on us, it makes for sobering and alarming reading. Its behind a paywall atm but I hope to throw up a few links ASAP over the coming week.


  • Options
    #1173
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    If this the same Economist that came out against nuclear three years ago on the grounds of safety and cost?

    http://www.economist.com/node/21549936


  • Options
    #1174
    L
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭L


    ted1 wrote: »
    Any savings are bring wiped out by a poor performing euro

    Gas prices are still 10-15% cheaper than last year when adjusted for the weaker euro.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    ?? So the minster and his quangos like the SEI and CER have failed to protect the consumer. Kinda the point I was making in relation to our energy policies.

    Unless you want the minister or CER to mandate customers being forced to switch to the cheapest energy supplier, there's not much more they can do other than point out the price differences between suppliers.

    There's a spread of 4c per KWh between the cheapest and most expensive electricity providers in Ireland - and consumers are still mostly with the more expensive supplier.


  • Options
    #1175
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    You have continuously failed to address any of the flaws outlined...
    Well, the onus isn't really on me to do so, seeing as how I didn't author the report. However, I don’t remember claiming that any report was flawless – that would obviously be a completely unreasonable claim.

    Getting back to the point at hand, I have produced numerous pieces of evidence showing that significant savings have been made in fossil fuel consumption through wind-based electricity generation. You have dismissed pretty much all of that evidence, seemingly on the back of single, anonymous, badly-referenced blog post, in which no estimate of total savings is given.

    So, maybe instead of throwing up yet another isolated link, you might formulate a coherent argument, preferably with some hard figures?


  • Options
    #1176
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Macha wrote: »
    If this the same Economist that came out against nuclear three years ago on the grounds of safety and cost?

    http://www.economist.com/node/21549936

    I never mentioned nuclear, but in response to your red herring, In the current article they highlight how nuclear has a clear role to play in a number of countries. Indeed in just the past year China,India,Argentina, Egypt,Saudi UAE etc. have all signed up to develope new nuclear power stations.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1177
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    L wrote: »
    Gas prices are still 10-15% cheaper than last year when adjusted for the weaker euro.



    Unless you want the minister or CER to mandate customers being forced to switch to the cheapest energy supplier, there's not much more they can do other than point out the price differences between suppliers.

    .

    The CER consistently cleared price increases over the past 15 years at the expense of the consumer so as to indulge the current flawed energy policies. And they are still failing in their mandate to protect the consumer


  • Options
    #1178
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Well, the onus isn't really on me to do so, seeing as how I didn't author the report. However, I don’t remember claiming that any report was flawless – that would obviously be a completely unreasonable claim.

    Getting back to the point at hand, I have produced numerous pieces of evidence showing that significant savings have been made in fossil fuel consumption through wind-based electricity generation. You have dismissed pretty much all of that evidence, seemingly on the back of single, anonymous, badly-referenced blog post, in which no estimate of total savings is given.

    So, maybe instead of throwing up yet another isolated link, you might formulate a coherent argument, preferably with some hard figures?

    Bunkum - you won't address the issues raised at it undermines your empty claims on the subject. Then you have the cheek to hurl petty insults at posters like me that point out the obvious flaws in your "wind is cheap" etc. arguments that anyone can see are utterly baseless. I have posted numerous factual links on the subject across this thread backing up all my arguments on this matter. Indeed the Economist really nailed it this week in their analysis of EU energy polcies and the German model that the likes of yourself want to inflict on Ireland etc.

    http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21678955-renewable-power-good-more-renewable-power-not-always-better-when-wind-blows


    "The biggest single cause of the fossil-fuel boom is China, which is examined in the next article. But rich Western countries are more culpable than they think. They have transformed their rural landscapes with wind farms and pushed up electricity prices for consumers, yet have managed to drive surprisingly little carbon out of the energy system. The record would look even worse if Western countries had not simultaneously exported much of their heavy industry, and thus much of their pollution, to China and other emerging countries. "

    ie. More or less the points I have been making in this thread and I've seen little or nothing from the wind lobby to dispute these findings


  • Options
    #1179
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Macha wrote: »
    If this the same Economist that came out against nuclear three years ago on the grounds of safety and cost?

    http://www.economist.com/node/21549936

    I never mentioned nuclear, but in response to your red herring, In the current article they highlight how nuclear has a clear role to play in a number of countries. Indeed in just the past year China,India,Argentina, Egypt,Saudi UAE etc. have all signed up to develope new nuclear power stations.
    Exactly. It's a schizophrenic publication written by non-experts that contradicts itself regularly.


  • Options
    #1180
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Bunkum - you won't address the issues raised at it undermines your empty claims on the subject. Then you have the cheek to hurl petty insults at posters like me that point out the obvious flaws in your "wind is cheap" etc. arguments that anyone can see are utterly baseless. I have posted numerous factual links on the subject across this thread backing up all my arguments on this matter. Indeed the Economist really nailed it this week in their analysis of EU energy polcies and the German model that the likes of yourself want to inflict on Ireland etc.

    http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21678955-renewable-power-good-more-renewable-power-not-always-better-when-wind-blows


    "The biggest single cause of the fossil-fuel boom is China, which is examined in the next article. But rich Western countries are more culpable than they think. They have transformed their rural landscapes with wind farms and pushed up electricity prices for consumers, yet have managed to drive surprisingly little carbon out of the energy system. The record would look even worse if Western countries had not simultaneously exported much of their heavy industry, and thus much of their pollution, to China and other emerging countries. "

    ie. More or less the points I have been making in this thread and I've seen little or nothing from the wind lobby to dispute these findings

    Funny enough that report says the problem with wind and solar is that they are effectively free ( and of course intermittent). And in Germany that means that the next cheapest energy source – coal – is the next most competitive. The solution is better carbon pricing.


  • Options
    #1181
    L
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭L


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    The CER consistently cleared price increases over the past 15 years at the expense of the consumer so as to indulge the current flawed energy policies. And they are still failing in their mandate to protect the consumer

    Retail electricity is a deregulated market (with CER as market monitor) since 2011 - so no they didn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1182
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Bunkum - you won't address the issues raised at it undermines your empty claims on the subject.
    But you’re not raising any specific issues? You just keep posting the same links over and over without actually discussing them. I have neither the time nor motivation to trawl through blog posts that you link to and critique them. It's up to you to draw attention to the relevant points.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Then you have the cheek to hurl petty insults at posters like me that point out the obvious flaws in your "wind is cheap" etc. arguments that anyone can see are utterly baseless.
    Baseless if you ignore all the facts and figures said arguments are based on, sure.

    And once again, posting a link does not constitute “pointing out flaws”.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    I have posted numerous factual links on the subject across this thread backing up all my arguments on this matter.
    No, you have posted numerous links in place of an argument on the matter.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Indeed the Economist really nailed it this week in their analysis of EU energy polcies and the German model that the likes of yourself want to inflict on Ireland etc.

    http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21678955-renewable-power-good-more-renewable-power-not-always-better-when-wind-blows

    …

    ie. More or less the points I have been making in this thread and I've seen little or nothing from the wind lobby to dispute these findings
    Yes, it is pretty much in line with your argument alright. It’s also a great big contradiction, which you’ve clearly missed – the argument that renewables are simultaneously too cheap (distorting wholesale markets) and too expensive (pushing up retail prices). It doesn’t make any sense.

    The problem is very obviously not renewables. The problem is the market.


  • Options
    #1183
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    The economist article was cant from start to finish. The economist gives the impression of neutral type dispassionate bloodless prose but it's just ideology. They used to deny climate change in fact, as an editorial position.


  • Options
    #1184
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    Funny enough that report says the problem with wind and solar is that they are effectively free ( and of course intermittent). And in Germany that means that the next cheapest energy source – coal – is the next most competitive. The solution is better carbon pricing.

    That will simply make energy even more expensive and send even more emmissions abroad via continued loss of heavy industry. Not to mention increasing energy poverty among the most vulnerable groups in society


  • Options
    #1185
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    L wrote: »
    Retail electricity is a deregulated market (with CER as market monitor) since 2011 - so no they didn't.





    The CER was founded in 1999 has been overseeing the energy markets in this country to varying degrees since then. The facts are that in this time the price of energy in this country has gone from below the EU averge to now the third highest in the block. Claiming they have no role in this state of affairs is not credible. In any case even since 2011 they have failed miserably to protect the consumer, especially in recent years when the price of oil and gas have dropped by 30% +


  • Options
    #1186
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    The economist article was cant from start to finish. The economist gives the impression of neutral type dispassionate bloodless prose but it's just ideology. They used to deny climate change in fact, as an editorial position.

    Numerous energy analysts have pointed out the major flaws in the EU's energy policies. Are they part of this "conspiracy" too??:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1187
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But you’re not raising any specific issues? You just keep posting the same links
    over and over without actually discussing them. I have neither the time nor
    motivation to trawl through blog posts that you link to and critique them. It's
    up to you to draw attention to the relevant points.
    Baseless if you ignore
    all the facts and figures said arguments are based on, sure.

    And once
    again, posting a link does not constitute “pointing out flaws”.
    No, you have
    posted numerous links in place of an argument on the matter

    I'm challenging you flawed mantra on the subject of costs and emission savings when it comes to wind. Clearly you are not prepared to address these issues and instead dress up this failure in waffle that others can judge for themselves.
    Yes, it is pretty much in line with your argument alright. It’s also a great big
    contradiction, which you’ve clearly missed – the argument that renewables are
    simultaneously too cheap (distorting wholesale markets) and too expensive
    (pushing up retail prices). It doesn’t make any sense.

    The problem is
    very obviously not renewables. The problem is the market.

    I've highlighted your problem right there. You clearly don't get what is involved in energy pricing on modern grids like Germany that are heavily dependent on coal,interconnectors etc, despite a massive investment in wind/solar. You clearly don't understand the issues around the costings on such grids in relation to baseload, spinning reserves, extra network costs, green subsidies etc. which makes the prices of retail power in these grids so expensive. These issues have been well highlighted in this thread by me and others but you clearly don't understand the issue or are simply not interested in such facts as they don't support your flawed views on the subject. Its sad really.


    PS: Instead of attacking posters that seek to give the full facts on such matters I suggest you explore this in depth study on the costing of various power sources on an existing grid

    http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ier_lcoe_2015.pdf

    .


  • Options
    #1188
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Macha wrote: »
    written by non-experts that contradicts itself regularly.

    They published a devastating critique recently of the UK's spend on solar/wind on the basis of direct quotes from Cambridge Professor David McKay who was the UK's Chief Government Scientific Advisor in the Dept for Energy and Climate Change. Do you consider this man a "non-expert"??


  • Options
    #1189
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    They published a devastating critique recently of the UK's spend on solar/wind on the basis of direct quotes from Cambridge Professor David McKay who was the UK's Chief Government Scientific Advisor in the Dept for Energy and Climate Change. Do you consider this man a "non-expert"??

    If you want to quoteanybody, then quote them. But just because a group or author has quoted somebody with some credibility does not give the quoter that same credibility.

    Much like your linking to articles and not engaging with the issues.


  • Options
    #1190
    OssianSmyth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭OssianSmyth


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    They published a devastating critique recently of the UK's spend on solar/wind on the basis of direct quotes from Cambridge Professor David McKay who was the UK's Chief Government Scientific Advisor in the Dept for Energy and Climate Change. Do you consider this man a "non-expert"??

    David MacKay wrote a book on the challenges of transitioning the UK to 100% renewables. It has been very well received and he kindly decided to publish it for free on the internet. You can read it here:
    http://www.withouthotair.com/
    David MacKay wrote:
    While my book is technology-neutral, the truth is that personally I am pro-wind! I think wind farms are brilliant, and I'd be very happy be within eye-shot of one almost anywhere in the ordinary countryside.


  • Options
    #1191
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    That will simply make energy even more expensive…
    Not necessarily. It’s possible to alter the dynamics of the market without changing average wholesale cost.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    I'm challenging you flawed mantra on the subject of costs and emission savings when it comes to wind. Clearly you are not prepared to address these issues…
    Once again, you are not highlighting any specific issues.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    I've highlighted your problem right there.
    No, you’ve just dismissed my critique of the article you linked to. Rather than discuss the point I made, you’ve just rejected it out of hand on the basis that, apparently, I just don’t understand - the last refuge of the weak argument.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    PS: Instead of attacking posters that seek to give the full facts on such matters I suggest you explore this in depth study on the costing of various power sources on an existing grid

    http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ier_lcoe_2015.pdf
    Yet another link.

    It’s unreasonable to expect anyone to have the time to read a 41-page report before continuing the discussion - care to draw our attention to some specific points contained therein?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1192
    L
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭L


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    The CER was founded in 1999 has been overseeing the energy markets in this country to varying degrees since then. The facts are that in this time the price of energy in this country has gone from below the EU averge to now the third highest in the block. Claiming they have no role in this state of affairs is not credible. In any case even since 2011 they have failed miserably to protect the consumer, especially in recent years when the price of oil and gas have dropped by 30% +

    I'm pointing out that your comment about the CER is factually incorrect. Their role as market monitor doesn't involve controlling prices (just ensuring they're fairly set).

    As for the rest, energy prices are cyclical due to investment. We had higher wholesale electricity prices than the UK in the 80s (due primarily to needing to pay off bulding Moneypoint), we had lower in the 90s (due to big plant being paid off/little new investment), then higher again due to (a lot of) new investment. Now we're roughly on parity with the UK despite lacking their interconnection into mainland Europe.


  • Options
    #1193
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Its sad really.

    [mod]Stop with the condescending language. It's entirely unnecessary[/mod]
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    I'm challenging you flawed mantra on the subject of costs and emission savings when it comes to wind. Clearly you are not prepared to address these issues and instead dress up this failure in waffle that others can judge for themselves.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    PS: Instead of attacking posters that seek to give the full facts on such matters I suggest you explore this in depth study on the costing of various power sources on an existing grid

    http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ier_lcoe_2015.pdf

    [mod] I'd like to draw your attention to this part of the charter, particularly the section in bold.
    Topics should be relevant to Sustainability and Environmental Issues and posts should not be (for example) verbatim quotes from an article or isolated links (to videos, for example) without comment from the poster. Offer your own opinion on the subject so far as is possible. If a link to a video or article is being posted as a response to another post or to make a specific point, then please state clearly what that point is.

    In other words, engage in a point-by-point debate. Don't just throw up random links with a suggestion that other posters read them to find out the points you're trying to make. It's lazy and poor debating. [/mod]


  • Options
    #1194
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    monument wrote: »
    If you want to quoteanybody, then quote them. But just because a group or author has quoted somebody with some credibility does not give the quoter that same credibility.

    Much like your linking to articles and not engaging with the issues.

    I've linked to a number quotations from David Mackay a number of times, including his own twitter account. If you can't be ar$ed paying attention to these posts then please don't make lazy and inaccurate comments as to my debating style. Below are a number of examples of my posts/links covering David Mackays analysis of wind/solar costs etc. on the UK grid

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97784900&postcount=1087

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21677663-some-cuts-green-power-subsidies-are-sensible-mixed-messages-risk-deterring-much-needed


    from the last link

    "Nor did boosts to renewables offer good value. Their power was too intermittent, says David MacKay, a Cambridge professor who served as the DECC’s chief scientific adviser in 2010-14. Although the cost of photovoltaic cells has plummeted in recent years, sunny days are infrequent in Britain; nor does the wind reliably blow. Onshore wind turbines produce energy less than 27% of the time, and large solar projects just 11% of the time, relative to their maximum potential. Green subsidies, funded by a levy on consumers’ energy bills, were originally forecast to reach £7.6 billion a year by 2020; before the recent cuts they were heading for £9.1 billion"


  • Options
    #1195
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    I'm pointing out that your comment about the CER is factually incorrect. Their
    role as market monitor doesn't involve controlling prices (just ensuring they're
    fairly set

    Do or do they not ok price increases?? I'd also like to know your definition of a regulator??



    As for the rest, energy prices are cyclical due to investment. We had higher
    wholesale electricity prices than the UK in the 80s (due primarily to needing to
    pay off bulding Moneypoint), we had lower in the 90s (due to big plant being
    paid off/little new investment), then higher again due to (a lot of) new
    investment    . Now we're roughly on parity with the UK despite lacking their
    interconnection into mainland Europe.
    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly - constructing excess wind capacity that makes little environmental or economic sense


  • Options
    #1196
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Macha wrote: »
    [mod]
    In other words, engage in a point-by-point debate. Don't just throw up random links with a suggestion that other posters read them to find out the points you're trying to make. It's lazy and poor debating. [/mod]

    Are there rules here about impartial modding?? I suggest you re-read that post and you will find I listed the points that your side-kick has consistently refused to address and then provided a link which expanded on those points. Or are you seriously saying I have to cut,copy and paste entire PDF documents for posters that are too lazy to click on a link????


  • Options
    #1197
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    .
    Once again, you are not highlighting any specific issues.
    No, you’ve
    just dismissed my critique of the article you linked     to. Rather than
    discuss the point I made, you’ve just rejected it out of hand on the basis that,
    apparently, I just don’t understand - the last refuge of the weak argument.

    Yet another link.

    What critique?? - you just recycle the same baseless dirge no matter what facts are placed in front of you. To quote Joe Higgin when he talked about a former discredited Taoseach "debating with him was like trying to play handball against a hay stack"
    It’s unreasonable to expect anyone to have the time to read a 41-page report

    Don't bother so - sad you can't be ar$ed to even read the conclusions in it but I should be used to your style of posting here by now


  • Options
    #1198
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    OssianSmyth wrote: »
    David MacKay wrote a book on the challenges of transitioning the UK to 100% renewables. It has been very well received and he kindly decided to publish it for free on the internet. You can read it here:
    http://www.withouthotair.com/

    I suggest you keep up with his most recent musings on the subject. That book was published way back in 2008, before he took up his post with the DECC, where he appears to have changed his opinions radically on the subject of wind power on the UK grid as my linked posts on the matter show.


  • Options
    #1199
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    I've linked to a number quotations from David Mackay a number of times, including his own twitter account. If you can't be ar$ed paying attention to these posts then please don't make lazy and inaccurate comments as to my debating style. Below are a number of examples of my posts/links covering David Mackays analysis of wind/solar costs etc. on the UK grid

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97784900&postcount=1087

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21677663-some-cuts-green-power-subsidies-are-sensible-mixed-messages-risk-deterring-much-needed


    from the last link

    "Nor did boosts to renewables offer good value. Their power was too intermittent, says David MacKay, a Cambridge professor who served as the DECC’s chief scientific adviser in 2010-14. Although the cost of photovoltaic cells has plummeted in recent years, sunny days are infrequent in Britain; nor does the wind reliably blow. Onshore wind turbines produce energy less than 27% of the time, and large solar projects just 11% of the time, relative to their maximum potential. Green subsidies, funded by a levy on consumers’ energy bills, were originally forecast to reach £7.6 billion a year by 2020; before the recent cuts they were heading for £9.1 billion"

    That's a quote from the Economist, not from MacKay.

    Do you have many or any direct quotes from him with full context to show his full position in more recent times?

    Nothing what the Economist paraphrases above conterdicts his overall support for wind turbines.


  • Options
    #1200
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    What critique?? - you just recycle the same baseless dirge no matter what facts are placed in front of you.
    I made specific reference to the article you linked to. Here, it is stated that renewables are pushing up prices for consumers:
    But rich Western countries are more culpable than they think. They have transformed their rural landscapes with wind farms and pushed up electricity prices for consumers…
    But later in the article, it is claimed that the problem with renewables is that the energy they produce is too cheap:
    The problem lies with the effect of renewables on energy markets. Because their power is free at the margin, green-power producers offer it for next to nothing in wholesale markets (they will go on to make money from subsidies, known as feed-in tariffs). Nuclear power stations also enter low bids. The next-lowest bids tend to come from power stations burning lignite coal—a cheap but especially dirty fuel. They are followed by the power stations burning hard coal, then the gas-fired power stations. The energy companies start by accepting the lowest bids. When they have filled the day’s requirements, they pay all successful bidders the highest price required to clear the market.
    The obvious conclusion here is that there is a problem with the market.

    Discuss.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Don't bother so - sad you can't be ar$ed to even read the conclusions in it but I should be used to your style of posting here by now
    You’ve read it in detail, have you? Why not provide us with a synopsis?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1201
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    I suggest you keep up with his most recent musings on the subject. That book was published way back in 2008, before he took up his post with the DECC, where he appears to have changed his opinions radically on the subject of wind power on the UK grid as my linked posts on the matter show.
    David MacKay is still a very outspoken proponent of renewables. For example, here is a "map of the world" he has produced, last updated in June 2013, showing countries' power consumptions, population densities, and areas and comparing power consumptions per unit area with the power production per unit area of various renewables.


Advertisement