Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
cashinmattress

Britain 'needs 20,000 More Wind Turbines To Stick To Green Targets'

Recommended Posts

link

Dramatic plans to erect up to 20,000 wind turbines and put millions of electric cars on the roads were unveiled yesterday by the Government’s climate experts.

Business guru Lord Turner, chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, said the UK had to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2030 to help tackle global warming.

The costs of switching to green power and transport would be covered by new environmental taxes and higher fuel bills.

Experts say the plans will cost around 1 per cent of the UK’s gross domestic product by 2030 – the equivalent of £30billion a year.

The report also called for the end of the free market for electricity companies and the return to a centralised planned system of power generation.

The target – published as environment ministers arrive in Cancun, Mexico, for the UN climate change talks – is the fourth ‘carbon budget’ set out by Lord Turner’s committee. If ministers accept the report, the 60 per cent target will become legally binding.

The Government has already pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020, and by 80 per cent by 2050.

‘We are recommending a stretching but realistic fourth carbon budget and 2030 target, achievable at a cost of less than 1 per cent of GDP,’ said Lord Turner.

He added: ‘Any less ambition would not be compatible with the 2050 target in the Climate Change Act. We therefore urge the Government to legislate the budget we have recommended.

‘Climate science remains robust and suggests there are very significant risks if we do not cut emissions. And countries acting now will gain economic benefits in an increasingly carbon constrained world.’

The Government has committed the UK to building up to 10,000 wind turbines over the next decade.

But to meet the latest 60 per cent target, Britain will need another 40 gigawatts of low carbon power between 2020 and 2030. That’s the equivalent of at least 25 new nuclear power stations, or up to 20,000 new offshore and onshore wind turbines.

David Kennedy, chief executive of the committee, said: ‘In the early 2020s we would be adding nuclear and wind farms, particularly offshore wind, to the system. By the mid-2020s we hope to branch into clean coal and gas with carbon capture and storage.’

The report said the UK will also need greener central heating of homes, with seven million heat pumps – devices that circulate warm air from deep below the soil into homes – by 2030.

Around 3.5million homes with ‘leaky solid walls’ should be insulated, it added. Eleven million electric cars will help cut emissions from road and rail by 45 per cent, it said.

The committee wants a major reform of the electricity market with the Government tendering out long-term contracts for low carbon power and promising a fixed return to investors in advance.

Mr Kennedy said the new system would be planned from the centre but added: ‘It’s not moving to a Stalinist sector.’

Climate change is rubbish. Britain's output of 'greenhouse' gasses is so small in relation to our other G8 (G20 really, as our economy is falling like a stone) competitors. It's a scam, a fvcking tax ruse, and people all over the shop are buying this one up. Lots of my friends and family have bought it, hook line and sinker

The real issue is the North Sea. Oil and gas production WILL be half or less by the year 2020.

Things are going to get so expensive it will make your head spin faster than one of these turbines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw the political talking heads on about energy the other night waffling on about the incomphensible £5BILLION to build a new nuclear plant over 8 years.

Dont we borrow £5 BILLION every week or so?

Why is 5 billion to be spent on subsidizing BTLers and paying people not to work chickenfeed, but to use to keep the lights and heating on apparently undoable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw the political talking heads on about energy the other night waffling on about the incomphensible £5BILLION to build a new nuclear plant over 8 years.

Dont we borrow £5 BILLION every week or so?

Why is 5 billion to be spent on subsidizing BTLers and paying people not to work chickenfeed, but to use to keep the lights and heating on apparently undoable?

One year's deficit is £175 billion. So we might have to wait a whole week and a half to get a nuclear plant. The 1.6 gigawatt French EPR is the one slated for Britain. Right now Britain gets 20% of its electricity from the 11 gigawatts of nuclear we have.

So throw a couple EPR's in and we won't need to worry about electricity. But I notice there is a whole industry, involving hundreds of thousands of people, who now are interested in NOT finding a solution. As their job depends on it. Which is a failure of leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenwash!

By 2030 our emissions will have to decline significantly with or without intervention. Why? Because peak oil will be a footnote way back in history by then anyway.

Our CO2 output and consequential green credentials are a fraud as we have exported most of the problem overseas to China, India et al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should do more research on tidal power , wind power isn't the answer.

+1

you could have a billion wind turbines ...but if the wind ain't blowing ..its all for nowt

The Severn should have been built

edit ...don't need any more research ...The French have had La Rance going for decades ........just build the bloody thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station

Edited by Tankus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're going to build more wind turbines, then I hope they put the f%^&*ers in London, Birmingham, Sheffield and Glasgow next time. Not windy enough in London? Then build them higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Severn should have been built

edit ...don't need any more research ...The French have had La Rance going for decades ........just build the bloody thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station

How silty is the Rance river though? Isn't that one of the reasons that the Severn Barrage has fallen out of favour?

I'm all for it, as long as it's technologically feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're going to build more wind turbines, then I hope they put the f%^&*ers in London, Birmingham, Sheffield and Glasgow next time. Not windy enough in London? Then build them higher.

actually they are ....this one is in Dalston . ......on a new development

4269035012_35a031772d_z.jpg

Got to wonder about the noise though

and

razor-strata-turbine-skyscraper-6.jpg

The Razor' london

Edited by Tankus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world has gone mad. Just incase the environMENTALISTS hadn't realised, we produce to satisy human needs not the needs of the earth,

A low carbon economy sounds like a lot of bother with very little upside, is it really worth the effort?

Edited by Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually they are ....this one is in Dalston . ......on a new development

The Razor' london

Better than what they've done round here to open, unspoilt countryside (Scout Moor)...

OB-FD615_co2inc_G_20091222214445.jpg

I wonder how much that Dalston one will generate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg

If only this green propaganda was true.

For example, the whole country has recently replaced traditional light-bulbs with the fluorescent ones.

As a result, you can now find little portions of highly toxic mercury in every British house. Most of them will end up in a landfill and filter through to our water.

What's the result for our future? No clean water and no healthy children (increased cancer rates).

Is this the better, 'greener' world?

Old solutions are sometimes much greener than we think but they don't generate more consumption.

Green solutions are here to make us consume more (new green cars, new green electricals, etc.). People underestimate the environmental cost of manufacturing those 'green' products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green solutions are here to make us consume more (new green cars, new green electricals, etc.). People underestimate the environmental cost of manufacturing those 'green' products.

Yes, as I have said before, the "greenest" thing to do with cars is to stop manufacturing them altogether for the next 30 years or so, and keep the ones we already have running, most of which are scrapped for the sake of a few hundred pounds worth of repairs, and often for no reason at all beyond boredom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercury was used in hat making fir many years ... Yes it drives you mad as a hatter. Local new health centre build on hat factory site after extensive cleaning operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of simplest and easiest quick kills for a greener economy would be to hobble the housing 'market', so that people couldn't make money by (say) buying up land/ real estate as an 'investment', so forcing other people to live large distances from their place of work or pay high costs. When these goons starts talking about that easily solvable problem i may start treating the green issue as something other than power / wealth grab.

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're going to build more wind turbines, then I hope they put the f%^&*ers in London, Birmingham, Sheffield and Glasgow next time. Not windy enough in London? Then build them higher.

Here's 3 just to the east of Sheffeld - you can see them from the M1 J30 or Woodhall Services. They are huge 100m high pylons.

wind_turbines_loscar.jpg

A few people have critisised wind turbines for not producing leccy when the wind isn't blowing. That's true, but we are now net importers of coal and gas, so when the wind does blow (which is most of the time) they are displacing the importation of that foreign coal and gas. Their big advantage is that their 'fuel' is free. And who knows where the price of coal and gas will be in 10 or 20 years time - my betting is 'a lot higher'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only this green propaganda was true.

For example, the whole country has recently replaced traditional light-bulbs with the fluorescent ones.

As a result, you can now find little portions of highly toxic mercury in every British house. Most of them will end up in a landfill and filter through to our water.

What's the result for our future? No clean water and no healthy children (increased cancer rates).

Is this the better, 'greener' world?

Old solutions are sometimes much greener than we think but they don't generate more consumption.

Green solutions are here to make us consume more (new green cars, new green electricals, etc.). People underestimate the environmental cost of manufacturing those 'green' products.

What a load of shyte.

Edited by Kurt Barlow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their big advantage is that their 'fuel' is free.

At first this would appear so, but the first law of thermodynamics tells us that this cannot be the case.

There *must* be some adverse consequence to converting wind energy to electrical energy. I do not know what this effect would be, only that the Laws of Physics demands that it must be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first this would appear so, but the first law of thermodynamics tells us that this cannot be the case.

There *must* be some adverse consequence to converting wind energy to electrical energy. I do not know what this effect would be, only that the Laws of Physics demands that it must be so.

No, the fuel is free (although obviously as its a machine it has maintenance costs). It does extract energy from the wind with less than 100% efficiency by the time the leccy is delivered, but all electrical systems have some losses. If you're interested in the physics of wind turbines prof mackays (a Cambridge physics prof) is a good read at: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first this would appear so, but the first law of thermodynamics tells us that this cannot be the case.

There *must* be some adverse consequence to converting wind energy to electrical energy. I do not know what this effect would be, only that the Laws of Physics demands that it must be so.

This has always interested me given the hysteria of some of the green rhetoric.

Not adverse necessarirly but there must be a consequence. I wonder if someone 100 years ago would have used the defence that increasing co2 ppm could not possibly affect anything?

Wind turbines currently look like a decent enough idea though already they thresh migratory birds and offshore ones affect the marine environment.

Are wind turbines environmentally neutral. Obviously not. For a strat they can be seen from miles away and arguably look like shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first this would appear so, but the first law of thermodynamics tells us that this cannot be the case.

There *must* be some adverse consequence to converting wind energy to electrical energy. I do not know what this effect would be, only that the Laws of Physics demands that it must be so.

Physics doesn't say that the effect must be adverse

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • 311 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.