Author Topic: Wind Farms (Read 37189 times)

Fleecewife · « **Reply #30 on:** May 18, 2011, 11:43:15 am »

<<More work on birth contorl in the developing world coiuld also be part of the solution>>

Have you noticed how family size is on the increase in Britain? In the 70s the aspirational size of a family was 2 children and the average was 2.4. I don't know the current figures, so it's just an impression but many young families now have 3 children or more, and 3 seems to be the aspirational size. So is our population rising? In which case we should be addressing our own birth control. Which of course brings us back to immigration/emigration ratios as another way to control our population size - all of which is impinging on the rights of the individual, a moral dilemma. My personal view is that in the interests of humanity as a whole, we may have to reduce the rights of the individual when it comes to matters which affect us all.

As several people have commented in this thread, we as a nation need - in fact have to reduce our energy consumption to fit in with what we can produce. We use far far more energy in many ways than we did even twenty years ago, and so much of it is wasted or unnecessary - this is where we need to do more work, by a mix of legislation, education and pricing, to reduce our energy greed.

doganjo · « **Reply #31 on:** May 18, 2011, 12:01:06 pm »

Yes, but will other countries do the same?

Coley · « **Reply #32 on:** May 18, 2011, 01:07:42 pm »

Quote from: doganjo on May 18, 2011, 12:01:06 pm

Yes, but will other countries do the same?

Well take China, taking a very responsible (if controversial) approach to population growth but building two coal fired stations per month! makes our efforts seem to be a to be a waste of time, and the projected world population going up by a third by 2050? are we in effect peeing into the wind?

shetlandpaul · « **Reply #33 on:** May 18, 2011, 01:08:27 pm »

strange our wind farm has a 50% rating and has paid for itself in 5 years or so. we are just about to have one installed at no cost we get the free power. its good to have a nice view but its better not to have a £2400 power bill.

Coley · « **Reply #34 on:** May 18, 2011, 01:15:05 pm »

Quote from: shetlandpaul on May 18, 2011, 01:08:27 pm

strange our wind farm has a 50% rating and has paid for itself in 5 years or so. we are just about to have one installed at no cost we get the free power. its good to have a nice view but its better not to have a £2400 power bill.

Is it situated in the Shetlands though? and if so, given that rate of efficiency no doubt your nice Mr Salmond will soon have both the Shetlands and the Orkney's covered with wind turbines

doganjo · « **Reply #35 on:** May 18, 2011, 01:26:04 pm »

No, I think I heard him say he was keen to see them offshore. And yes, he is VERY nice, I've met him twice, first time wandering round a local fair and stopped to watch the dog show, and chat to owners about their dogs, second at an SNP event - equally relaxed. Completely natural and extremely fond and proud of his country of birth - as I am!

Coley · « **Reply #36 on:** May 18, 2011, 01:31:11 pm »

Completely natural and extremely fond and proud of his country of birth - as I am!
So am I, I just don't feel the need to emphasise the point.

Fleecewife · « **Reply #37 on:** May 18, 2011, 02:02:46 pm »

Coley, why are you so antagonistic about this? England, Wales and Scotland share an island and we all have to face the problems of population and energy. Slinging mud across the border achieves nothing - lets work together

Coley · « **Reply #38 on:** May 18, 2011, 02:09:05 pm »

Coley, why are you so antagonistic about this?

No antagonism intended, I am/was a staunch unionist, however as a UK taxpayer I object to one region being featherbedded, If the Scots want independence, fine, just lets not wait 4 years for a referendum eh?

doganjo · « **Reply #39 on:** May 18, 2011, 02:20:10 pm »

Quote from: Coley on May 18, 2011, 02:09:05 pm

Coley, why are you so antagonistic about this?

No antagonism intended, I am/was a staunch unionist, however as a UK taxpayer I object to one region being featherbedded, If the Scots want independence, fine, just lets not wait 4 years for a referendum eh?

And I object to the implications that Scotland is being feather bedded - is that really what you are saying? Anyway, I think if you read all the reports you will see that not ALL Scots want independence (I think it's about 50/50 at the moment, and a lot depends on what happens in the next couple of years) - the Union would be a great thing if there wasn't such bias towards England by the Westminster Governement. We need more devolution for all four sections of our Union, then there would be a fair system in place. You would be happy, I would be happy, but there are always moaners.

Coley · « **Reply #40 on:** May 18, 2011, 06:35:27 pm »

Quote from: doganjo on May 18, 2011, 02:20:10 pm

Quote from: Coley on May 18, 2011, 02:09:05 pm
Coley, why are you so antagonistic about this?

No antagonism intended, I am/was a staunch unionist, however as a UK taxpayer I object to one region being featherbedded, If the Scots want independence, fine, just lets not wait 4 years for a referendum eh?
And I object to the implications that Scotland is being feather bedded - is that really what you are saying?
Scotland, Ireland and Wales all benefit from the Barnett formula, now given that Salmond brags that Scotland has one of the highest regional GDPs do you think that is appropiate?

Anyway, I think if you read all the reports you will see that not ALL Scots want independence (I think it's about 50/50 at the moment, and a lot depends on what happens in the next couple of years) -
Aye, and rest assured that Salmond will use the extra funding to make sure the Scots enjoy a higher standard of living than the rest of us and by doing so, con more and more Scots into voting for independence

the Union would be a great thing if there wasn't such bias towards England by the Westminster Governement. We need more devolution for all four sections of our Union, then there would be a fair system in place. You would be happy, I would be happy, but there are always moaners.

I agree about the Union however I feel devolution is not the answer, better representation yes, but not devolution

shetlandpaul · « **Reply #41 on:** May 18, 2011, 07:09:21 pm »

being English in Shetland im all in favour of more independence. after all how would England have coped in the 1980s without Shetlands oil. England has milked Shetlands oil and fish. your in hock to us for trillions. So its best not to start making out how generous you have been to the backwards cousins. When England commits to producing a 100% of its power needs from renewables. you will be able to lecture us.

mab · « **Reply #42 on:** May 18, 2011, 07:51:54 pm »

Quote

Then what is?

Alas there's no easy answer to that question. And probably no single 'right' answer.

IMHO:

There are too many people - well there's no morally acceptable quick solution to that problem.

While there are no 'easy answers' the total reliance on wind for our energy needs is certainly not the answer, tidal turbines should recieve as much encouragment as possible as should other forms of sea powered generation, biomass? yes if it is produced on poor quaility land and not prime arable, waste incinerators (including sewage, as is done in scotland) ar another possible part of the solution, but we would have to exempt ourselves from the relevant EU restrictions, there are many solutions, but the drive to wind, driven purely by the subsidy and high profits wants knocking on the head pronto.

I agree - wind alone is not the answer, and we should be developing all the renewable technologies as you say; but the british isles (I'm staying out of whole Scottish devolution issue BTW

) are uniquely well placed in Europe for wind energy - particularly offshore wind energy - so there is some justification for pushing that particular technology here, as you'd push solar in spain. Having said that I must concede that the same argument holds true for tidal and wave energy, but perhaps the technology or those is less well developed ATM.

Quote

<<More work on birth contorl in the developing world coiuld also be part of the solution>>

Have you noticed how family size is on the increase in Britain? In the 70s the aspirational size of a family was 2 children and the average was 2.4. I don't know the current figures, so it's just an impression but many young families now have 3 children or more, and 3 seems to be the aspirational size. So is our population rising? In which case we should be addressing our own birth control. Which of course brings us back to immigration/emigration ratios as another way to control our population size - all of which is impinging on the rights of the individual, a moral dilemma. My personal view is that in the interests of humanity as a whole, we may have to reduce the rights of the individual when it comes to matters which affect us all.

Very true!

Having children should be viewed as a privilege rather than a right, but we need gov't's to start discouraging large families (by introducing financial incentives for e.g), but politicians are timid when it comes to suggesting such unpopular policies (note recent controversy about restricting child support).

mab

Coley · « **Reply #43 on:** May 18, 2011, 08:43:50 pm »

Quote from: shetlandpaul on May 18, 2011, 07:09:21 pm

being English in Shetland im all in favour of more independence. after all how would England have coped in the 1980s without Shetlands oil. England has milked Shetlands oil and fish. your in hock to us for trillions. So its best not to start making out how generous you have been to the backwards cousins. When England commits to producing a 100% of its power needs from renewables. you will be able to lecture us.

Shetlands oil? makes a change from "Scotlands oil" in fact its British oil just as the RBS bailout is a british problem