Wind farmers have been proved to be liars. All their statistics are
based on a totally misleading figure of CO2 savings. They've
admitted it. The government uses our money to subsidise crooks with a
false prospectus
But on top of that is the futililty and vast cost to consumers of
this wasteful way of producing electricity. In any case since it has
also been proved that increases in atmospheric CO2, man-made or
natural, come as a result - and after - temperature rises. The CO2
emissions are irrelevant!
Wogan, at the end, in his own way, makes fun of all these maniacs.
xxxxxxxxxx cs
===================
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH 21.12.08
WIND FARMS NOT HALF AS GREEN AS CLAIMED
Promoters overstated the environmental benefit of wind farms
The wind farm industry has been forced to admit that the
environmental benefit of wind power in reducing carbon emissions is
only half as big as it had previously claimed.
By Patrick Sawer
It will be regarded as a concession that twice as many wind turbines
as previously calculated will be needed to provide the same degree of
reduction in Britain's carbon emissions
The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) has agreed to scale down
its calculation for the amount of harmful carbon dioxide emission
that can be eliminated by using wind turbines to generate electricity
instead of burning fossil fuels such as coal or gas.
The move is a serious setback for the advocates of wind power, as it
will be regarded as a concession that twice as many wind turbines as
previously calculated will be needed to provide the same degree of
reduction in Britain's carbon emissions.
A wind farm industry source admitted: "It's not ideal for us. It's
the result of pressure by the anti-wind farm lobby." [It's not chum.
You were lying! -cs]
For several years the BWEA - which lobbies on behalf of wind power
firms - claimed that electricity from wind turbines 'displaces' 860
grams of carbon dioxide emission for every kilowatt hour of
electricity generated.
However it has now halved that figure to 430 grams, following
discussions with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
Hundreds of wind farms are being planned across the country, adding
to the 198 onshore and offshore farms - a total of 2,389 turbines -
already in operation. Another 40 farms are currently under construction.
Experts have previously calculated that to help achieve the
Government's aim of saving around 200 million tons of CO2 emissions
by 2020 - through generating 15 per cent of the country's electricity
from wind power - would require 50,000 wind turbines.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2,389 - Number of wind turbines currently in operation across
Britain. Another 100,000 would be needed to meet Britain's carbon
emissions target
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
But the new figure for carbon displacement means that twice as many
turbines would now be needed to save the same amount of CO2 emissions.
While their advocates regard wind farms as a key part of Britain's
fight against climate change, opponents argue they blight the
landscape at great financial cost while bringing little environmental
benefit.
Dr Mike Hall, an anti-wind farm campaigner from the Friends of Eden,
Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery group in the Lake District, said:
"Every wind farm application says it will lead to a big saving in the
amount of carbon dioxide produced. This has been greatly exaggerated
and the reduction in the carbon displacement figure is a significant
admission of this.
"As we get cleaner power stations on line, the figure will get even
lower. It further backs the argument that wind farms are one of the
most inefficient and expensive ways of lowering carbon emissions."
Because wind farms burn no fuel, they emit no carbon dioxide during
regular running. The revised calculation for the amount of carbon
emission they save has come about because the BWEA's earlier figure
did not take account of recent improvements to the technology used in
conventional, fossil-fuel-burning power stations.
The figure of 860 grams dates back to the days of old-style coal-
fired power stations [They don't mind lying if they can screw more
subsidies out of the taxpayer -cs] . However, since the early 1990s,
many of the dirty coal-fired stations have been replaced by cleaner-
burning stations, with a consequent reduction in what the industry
calls the "grid average mix" figure for carbon dioxide displacement.
As a result, a modern 100MW coal or gas power station is now
calculated to produce half as many tonnes of carbon dioxide as its
predecessor would have done.
The BWEA's move follows a number of rulings by the ASA against claims
made by individual wind farm promoters about the benefits their
schemes would have in reducing carbon emissions.
In one key adjudication, the ASA ruled that a claim by Npower
Renewables that a wind farm planned for the southern edge of Exmoor
National Park, in Devon, would help prevent the release of 33,000
tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was "inaccurate and
likely to mislead". This claim was based on the 860-gram figure.
The watchdog concluded: "We told Npower to ensure that future carbon
savings claims were based on a more representative and rigorous
carbon emissions factor."
The ASA has now recommended that the BWEA and generating companies
use the far lower figure of 430 grams.
In a letter to its members, the BWEA's head of onshore, Jan
Matthiesen, said: "It was agreed to recommend to all BWEA members to
use the single static figure of 430 g CO2/kWh for the time being. The
advantage is that it is well accepted and presents little risk as it
understates the true figure."
This is now the figure given on the BWEA's website. The organisation
will also be forced to lower its claim for the total amount of carbon
dioxide emission saved by the 2,389 wind turbines currently operating
around Britain.
But the association denied the change weakened the case for wind farms.
Nick Medic, spokesman for the BWEA, said: "Wind farms are still
eliminating emissions. The fact is that fossil fuel burning power
stations belch out CO2 and wind farms don't. That has not changed.
"The fact is we need to reduce carbon emissions, however you account
for them. But there are people who just don't like wind farms and
will use any argument against them." [They've been caught
comprehensively lying and use weasel words in self-justification.
Also they never take into account the vast CO2 emissions from all the
concrete they use and the roads they build -cs] .
2. Wogan's World - by Terry Wogan
- - - And someone out to steal the great Booker's thunder. "It's the
coldest start to the winter for 30 years" . That's because 30 years
ago we were near the end of a 30 year period that was colder than
the previous 30 years. Then it started to get warmer, but the cold
30 years is the one that the har bingers of doom use to compare to
the present 30 years, to prove that we've got global warming. And if
you think that makes sense, join the government and advise them to
put more taxes on fuel to stop us all overheating. Oh, and in Hudson
Bay where the 'ice is melting' for the polar bears, it's minus 32
degrees centigrade - twice as cold as it was 3 years ago!
The people are no eejits
sent) there follows the second half of Christopher Booker's column.
This shows that they've started cooking the books and doctoring the
evidence.
xxxxxxxxxx cs
============
Facts melted by 'global warming'
Something very odd had happened to the daily updated graph on the
official Nansen website last weekend, writes Christopher Booker.
Christopher Booker

Butterflies and polar ice are enlisted in warmist cause Photo: Getty
Last weekend, that heroically diligent US meteorologist Anthony Watts
noticed that something very odd had happened to the daily updated
graph on the official Nansen website that shows how much sea-ice
there is in the Arctic. Without explanation, as he reported on his
Watts Up With That website, half a million square kilometres of ice
simply vanished overnight.
This might have brought cheer to all those, such as Al Gore and the
BBC, who have been obsessively telling us that the Arctic ice will
soon disappear altogether. They were dismayed enough last winter
when, after reaching its lowest point in 30 years, the ice bounded
back to near "normal". This winter the freeze has been even faster
and greater, making the extent of the ice, according to the other
main Arctic website, Crysophere Today, 500,000 sq km greater than
this time last year. How better to maintain the chosen narrative than
to lose that half-million square kilometres simply by "adjusting" the
graph downwards?
The warmists are so locked into their general narrative that the
plummeting temperatures and abnormal snowfalls of the past two
winters have thrown their army of media groupies into quite a tizzy.
The BBC did at least deign last week to notice the worst snowstorm to
hit Las Vegas for 30 years, but without mentioning the freak snow and
ice storms affecting many other parts of the US, as far south as New
Orleans. The BBC was also quick to pick up from Pravda the unusual
lack of snow in Moscow, without mentioning Siberia's record freeze
that lowered temperatures to -60C.
Elsewhere in recent days, there have been reports of seven species of
penguin being put on the endangered list owing to global warming –
although Antarctic sea-ice this year reached easily its highest level
since satellite records began in 1979.
Another warmist perennial to get an outing, from Dr Martin Warren of
Butterfly Conservation, is the threat to the survival of many of our
butterflies. As a longtime student of
butterflies, I am keenly aware of various factors leading to the
alarming decline in their numbers, but global warming is not one of
them. If it were, how did such dwindling species as the Mountain
Ringlet and even the Small Tortoiseshell survive the much warmer
temperatures 1,000 years ago, before SUVs were invented?
Perhaps the get-out for the beleaguered warmists was provided by
Friday's Today programme, when it reported heavy snowfalls on the
Cairngorm ski slopes, only two years after the BBC was excitably
reporting fears that ski-ing in Scotland might soon be but a memory.
A local spokeswoman helpfully suggested that the thing about "climate
change" was that it was always coming up with the unexpected.
So whatever happens, hot or cold, wet or dry, it can all be put down
to that pesky old "climate change". As the rest of us might observe
with a wry smile, how very true.
Posts
