Jump to content

Is climate change a fraud?


Banker

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, HeliX said:

"Shetland offers a huge opportunity to wind developers, as Shetland’s existing Burradale wind farm proves. Sited onshore on the largest island, Mainland, the five turbines generate 3.68MW with an average capacity factor of 52%"

https://www.power-technology.com/features/sse-renewables-viking-wind-farm-shetland-development-onshore/?cf-view

Thank you @HeliX . At last somebody has some information on the statistics rather than simply shooting the messenger. This is interesting. It does show far higher yields are being achieved than Burgess published in his list.

It doesn't mean that we would see anything like the yields on Shetland, nor does it alter the fundamentals of the costs being entirely incremental to what we are already paying for fossil fuel generation, but at least it tells us more than the green lobby offered us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Idleweiss said:

I’ll leave it there. You’re clearly the angry eco wally that’s all over Facebook. This will just go on for hours. It’s not worth my time. 

Not a good response to a rare injection of facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, woolley said:

It doesn't mean that we would see anything like the yields on Shetland

There was a site that offered the wind speed data for Shetland for £100 but I didn't value winning the argument quite that highly ;) But from anecdotal reading while I was looking at other stats, the wind figures at Earystane are good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cambon said:

A drop in the ocean and about half what the energy from waste plant is supposed to contribute, at great expense. Hasn’t generated anything for months if not years. Another government success story! 

What has that got to do with anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

Nah, if you mean the old fascist, natural causes are not going to be far off by the looks of him.

Still chirping on about fascists as you appear to completely lack any coherent argument about anything. Just like every other sneering little woke on social media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Internet shows that the IoM has a consumption of 1660GWh per year.

The Suez data shows maybe 40 GWh per year.

The forecast for Earystane 100 to 150 GWh per year.

Taking the conservative figure for Earystane, that is maybe 6%.

Offset against that the monetary cost of construction, installation, maintenance, repair, replacement of the system and the environmental cost of the damage, the concrete and so on, is it worth it?

You cannot get away from the need of a power station.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

The Internet shows that the IoM has a consumption of 1660GWh per year.

The Suez data shows maybe 40 GWh per year.

The forecast for Earystane 100 to 150 GWh per year.

Taking the conservative figure for Earystane, that is maybe 6%.

Offset against that the monetary cost of construction, installation, maintenance, repair, replacement of the system and the environmental cost of the damage, the concrete and so on, is it worth it?

You cannot get away from the need of a power station.

 

They are not intended to get away for the need for a power station (or alternative).

There are two drivers. 

1. Reduce the use of fossil fuels.

2. Save money by not having to buy as much gas. 

Both are related. Both are givens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

1. Reduce the use of fossil fuels.

There are ways to do that. Reduce the population - but the IoM gov. wants to increase the population. Ban hair dryers (which are high-power electrical devices) - that would not bother me, but other people (in spite of them claiming that they want to save the planet) will insist on using them.

6 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

2. Save money by not having to buy as much gas. 

Offset the cost of installation etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Ban hair dryers (which are high-power electrical devices) - that would not bother me, but other people (in spite of them claiming that they want to save the planet) will insist on using them.

Remember the outcry a couple of years back when the EU reduced the wattage that vacuum cleaners could be sold with? 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

The Internet shows that the IoM has a consumption of 1660GWh per year.

The Suez data shows maybe 40 GWh per year.

The forecast for Earystane 100 to 150 GWh per year.

Taking the conservative figure for Earystane, that is maybe 6%.

Offset against that the monetary cost of construction, installation, maintenance, repair, replacement of the system and the environmental cost of the damage, the concrete and so on, is it worth it?

You cannot get away from the need of a power station.

 

404GWh current demand according to https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://consult.gov.im/cabinet-office/climate-change-plan-2022-2027/supporting_documents/Isle%20of%20Man%20%20Future%20Energy%20Scenarios%20Executive%20Summary.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwib08X1hfWGAxU6VkEAHXenA5IQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw25bK4m8eM-QHhvU_u6kWox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...