the communist authorities ordered the construction of millions of backyard iron furnaces to forward the revolution. Nearly all this vast effort was useless. You can’t make industrial-quality iron from mud-brick furnaces. I thought of this when I read in Christopher Booker an item (scroll down) about
Another ludicrous example of how the BBC now pushes its own cock-eyed agenda was an item on Radio 4’s You and Yours last week on wind turbines. The message was that, if you install your own turbine, you can make money by selling the surplus to the National Grid.
All five contributors, including the energy minister, Mike O’Brien, were wide-eyed lobbyists for wind power. A man from Kent who has erected a 45-foot turbine at the bottom of his garden, at a cost of £25,000, was asked how much electricity it produced. He admitted that, thanks to the vagaries of the wind, it did not average more than “two or three kilowatts”. The BBC carefully did not explain that this is only enough to power a couple of electric fires, or boil a few kettles.
Just above that there is an item about the BBC downplaying of the tsunami relief work of the US and Australian Navies in favour of reports about the views of politicians on the disaster, the EU’s three minute silence and so on.
As an architect I’ve had to struggle with a great deal of bad greenie math, their micro-management of engineering that doesn’t work, their wishful imaginings of how things *could* work, and their inability to add up costs.
One of the finest examples is the windmill fetish. They imagine that it’s free. A £25,000 wind generator, which doesn’t necessarily run when peak loading is drawn on it, at 3 kw will generate a revenue of roughly £1400 per year (using the average U.S. electric rates that i’m familiar with).
Accounting for inflation in the cost of electricity, it will take roughly 13 years to pay for itself, which is probably greater than its’ service life. As for saving resources, it’s likely made up of roughly 250 kg of steel or aluminum. Someone had to build it, and there is embedded energy sitting right there, which have to be replicated in 10 years or so when it’s replaced.
On the other hand, the engines in reliable power plant might live to be 50 years old, as man
(cont’d)
…to be 50 years old, as many of them are.
There is also the fantasy that they have about wehat it can do. We burn oil to generate peak loads because it is efficent to switch on and off, adn doesn’t have to expel energy during off-peak hours.
Try predicting when the wind will blow. Sometimes it doesn’t. Deploying a great deal of wind power will require that we have MORE oil or gas fired peak generation to compensate for the times when the winds don’t blow adequately. You guessed it – it will require more petroleum consumption, a larger ammount of idle capacity, and more maintenance cost, not less.
The only thing one really need to warn these folks about is that they need to stop smoking crack, not second guessing people with a seasoned knowledge of engineering.
It irratates me how governments aren’t promoting new generation nuclear power plants as the best medium term solution to our enery problems in the face of ‘green’ propoganda.
One of the concerns of the government is the security of the nuclear plant and its susceptibility to suicidal terrorist attack. This is one instance of Blair’s vaunted “joined-up thinking” – we’ve allowed a reservoir of Islamic suicide bombers into the country so we must ensure that the public are protected from the worst consequences by not developing the technology proven to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. This is Nobel prize quality!
If the greens were truly interested in reducing pollution from fossil fuels, they’d be all for nuclear power (only emmision is steam).
But they aren’t of course, because their only agenda is the dissolution of capitalism and the imposition of communism. (environmentalism is nothing more than a stalking horse for communism, just read fritz schumacher)
They are ‘watermelons’ (Green on the outside, red on the inside).
Over the years they have propagated a number of scare stories (ozone layer is burning! Nuclear war imminent! Ice age imminent!) to create environmental ‘panick’.
Their strategy seems to be to create / cultivate hysteria over non-existant, or at the very least, vastly exadurated problems, so as to advance left wing ‘solutions’. Global warming and ‘the day after tommorow’ propaganda is no different.
There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that world temperatures are determined by long term solar cycles, not mankind. Extreme weather is nothing ne
…Extreme weather is nothing new, but of course we are only ever allowed to hear one side of the story.
Here’s an experiment. Put an icecube into a glass of water and observe the water level. Allow the icecube to melt, then look again. The actual water level will go DOWN, because ice is more volumonous than water.
So if the ice caps melt, doesn’t that actually mean that sea levels will fall? Think about it.
Noticed how many green,liberal type people don’t think that wind farms visually pollute lovely wild hillsides, but think that a satellite dish spoils the look of a perfectly ordinary average urban semi?
3 points:
1. There’s lots of debate about nuclear within the green movement – for exactly the reasons you mention. Terrorist threats and the long-term waste storage requirement are both negatives, lack of CO2 is a big positive. Domestic microgeneration isn’t yet economic. Focus on power generation in regards to CO2 is narrowminded, because transport and industry are big factors.
2. Melting icecaps. The example of the ice cube in the glass doesn’t work for Antarctica, which is a rocky continent and thus not displacing any water. Greenland likewise. You’ll find these are of much more concern than the arctic ice sheet.
3. Temperature fluctuations. Well, the really significant thing is the close historic correlation between global average temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration. So when the atmospheric CO2 concentration shoots up, it is reasonable to have some concern about possible temperature rise **even if you can’t measure the rise yet**.
This hasn’t got lots t
…to do with the BBC, but was worth correcting any misunderstandings 🙂
“close historic correlation between global average temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration”
The correlation is that C02 lags temperature. i.e. temperature increases release C02.
perhaps Mike O’Brien should stick to expelling hot air on a topic on which he is an expert – such as sucking up to muslim voters pre-election .Speaking of which , how nice and coincidental that those 4 terror suspects are returning weeks before the election!
Their goal is to force others to do something that they thought. They’re basically unreconstructed adolescents who like the idea of hating something. It’s something that simpletons find some meaning to life in.
Remeber these were the kids that excelled in lit and social studies, but failed math. Asked what they base their views on, reason falls apart – there is always a tale of an experience… “I remember when I was young there was an abattoire down the road…”
I read an article a while ago about a new resin shell (or some such like) which lasts longer than the nuclear waste’s half life and is inpenetrable and cheap to apply. This seems to solve the waste problem.
You realize that the greenies are trying to construct a religion, don’t you?…
you have a paradise tale (a pristine earth where human weren’t eaten by cougars), a warning of armageddon (global warming), penitent acts (recycling), a pliesly class (the greenies)…
It has the markings of a cult.
OT, and having watched the BBC’s 10 o’clock news, my heart swelled with joy at hearing that our British boys are finally being released from Guantanamo. As their solicitor said, they are as likely to be terrorists as you or I. To maintain the BBC’s momentum, Carolyn Hawley sent back a completely impartial report on how the Shia Iraqis hate the Americans for feeding them and providing the means of construction (not re-construction – the sewerage systems in Sadr City are new).
Does anybody feel the way that I do; that the BBC’s anti-US stance is so unrelenting that their reports should be watched with the brain set in comedy mode.
No, I think you all should travel to the States and other countries and see what their news service is like. The BBC is, quite simply, the best media service on the planet. But hey, dont take my word for it. Ask the iraqis, they all listen to the world service!
Idiots, get a life.
Chris “Ask the iraqis, they all listen to the world service!”
Is that a fact? Tell us how you know?
Has Hawley told you? But she never leaves the hotel.
Chris
If the BBC news service is so good – why do so many people choose to watch Sky News ?
And as for the Iraqis – other than the leftie BBC World Service they have precious little choice of external radio news.
Allen, Yes – I share your sentiments, but laughter is not my reaction. I do not believe the BBC can be reformed. It is a cancer on the nation. Radical surgery to excise it from the body politic is the only course. Without anaesthetic. Traitorous bastards.
Hello Chris
I do travel to other states. The most striking thing when you do this is that you will not see/hear the BBC. I recently went to Cuba- CNN was the only English- speaking news channel available. I work across Europe (particularly Germany). CNN is the only english speaking news chanel.
Only possible conclusion= American news is best and CNN is the best ‘media service on the planet’……
So how do you reconcile this with the BBC being the most ‘respected’ and most listened to/watched broadcaster. Simple the BBC gives a free service (the World Service) to areas were there is no local output.
I agree that this is not necessarily a bad thing. But please do not confuse this with QUALITY output. Any fool can give it a way. And were people have a market choice, they are choosing not to view/listen to our dear old Auntie.
The BBC (World Service in particular) is pouring away its credibility in the same way as the spoilt son of a self-made millionaire pours away the riches arduously built up by his father.
Natalie –
You’re entering the realms of the ridiculous now and discrediting the anti-bias movement.
ON the basis of your post, every edition of Tomorrow’s World should have been indicted for extremist bias – since they were always peddling solutions that never quite made it.
Wind power has several advantages, not least that it does not of itself release carbon or pollutants. By replacing imported oils it enhances the national economy. Development of wind turbine technology is also indigenous and so very helpful to our economy.
Nuclear power is incredibly dangerous. One mistake and you could make 10% of the country uninhabitable.
…also it is ridiculous to compare backyard steel production with wind power. Wind power works. It should be used as a supplement to indigenous bio fuels which themselves shoudl be form a major part of our agricultural sector rather than producing more and more food that no one wants.
“Best”, or just a captive audience? The only english language broadcast (from without) to me in the Eastern Mediterranian was BBC WS on FM and MW out of Cyprus, and Lebanese prated rebroadcasts of CNN.
David, good intentions cannot replace facts. Wind Power is hugely uneconomical, that’s a fact.
Also nuclear power isn’t ‘incredibly dangerous’. You can argue that it is potentially dangerous but then a lot of things are potentially dangerous. A new generation nuclear power plant could be made as safe as you like.
They did not call it “news”
Three words: North Sea Oil, and there is no way that building wind generators could enhance the economy in any way that’s different that manufacturing anything else. Heaven forbid that industries would have to actually DEPEND on wind energy in any way. The supply is unpredictable and it’s INCREDIBLY costly.
The tired old saw about “when scale of ecomony kicks in…” is bogus. When it doesn’t they blame it on industry for “killing” the new technologies…
Look – it’s just an emotional game that envi
(cont’d)
Look – it’s just an emotional game that environmentalists are playing. All teh ones I know actually drive Honda SUVs and Range Rovers – they just don’t think anyone ELSE should.
It takes a lot more than one mistake. In fact they had only a handful of mistakes in the past 50 years in Britain. The most severe outside of the USSR was 3 mile island. It killed no-one, no-one got cancer, no livestock poisoned, and the cleanup cost $10 M.
Andrew/Joe –
Calling opinions “facts” doesn’t make them so.
In response:
1. Wind power is not hugely uneconomical. You first have to say what your frame for judging the economics is. If you factor in the positive benefits on the internal economy (compared with importing oil and opil products thousands of miles from overseas) I think the evidence suggests it is probably already economical and costs are falling dramatically all the time. Nuclear power is completely uneconomical which is why no private company will touch the industry with a barge pole. The true costs of the industry have been covered up for years and I suspect continue to be. For instance, we now have to protect them against Al Queda style attacks (a jumbo jet can go through the skin
of a reactor like a knife through paper bag).
2. North Sea oil is fast depleting and is in any case not suitable for all types of energy demand I think.
(continued)
(continued)
3. I’m happy to use potentially dangerous in relation to nuclear power if you want though in nearly every case in conversation where we say “dangerous” we mean of course potentially dangerous. When I say it’s dangerous to drive at 200 mph on the motorway I don’t mean you won;t survive – I mean it’s potentially dangerous. Same with the nuclear industry. No other industry has the same risk profile.
4. Only an idiot would advocate 100% wind power generation. I’m not an idiot. The comments about the interrupted pattern of wind power are therefore completely irrelevant. One obvious fact is though that wind power is plentiful in the winter months. Wind power could probably contribute about 20% of the total generative power. That should be the aim.
David- Whereever one uses wind power there must always be a backup supply online due to fluctuating output. Therefore NO savings are made whatsoever as no matter how many windmills one has, one can’t shutdown a single regular powerplant which surely is the whole point.
As far as nuclear is concerned I see it as the best option until new forms of energy become viable. If/when Kyoto collapses all the money that is going into that flawed, ill fated project should be pumped into fission, hyrdrogen and other new energy source research.
Lee: “I do travel to other states. The most striking thing when you do this is that you will not see/hear the BBC. I recently went to Cuba- CNN was the only English- speaking news channel available. I work across Europe (particularly Germany). CNN is the only english speaking news chanel.”
There are few things I’ve noticed about this statement: Cuba has state controlled media which only broadcasts home-grown or South American programming. The only reason why you can get CNN is Cuba’s proximity to Florida and the lack of funds (presumably) of the Cuban government to block it out. Germany does carry the BBC as I’ve seen it myself in Germany, as do most Western European countries that I’ve visited.
http://www.bbcworld.com/content/template_howtoreceive_1europe.asp?pageid=2075
Just in case you don’t believe me.
John: In relation your comments about the BBC WS I thought you might be interested in this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/us/annual_review/2003/radio.shtml
Read ‘fusion’
“One obvious fact is though that wind power is plentiful in the winter months. Wind power could probably contribute about 20% of the total generative power. ”
Not true. Wind power is available sometimes.
A characteristic of British winters is frequent periods of high pressure, some of which can last for weeks. During these periods the sun shines very brightly, and the temerature dips markedly, leading to increased demand. As a hill walker, I love these periods but they would be problematic if we even had 10% from wind.
In the end, I can’t see wind power as anything other than a ‘new-age’ solution to a real problem.
BTW, the government is aware of the problem with the British weather regarding wind.
David:
The MORE you depend on power sources with an unpredictable output, the more “Peak generation” capacity you need. In other words: diesel, heavy fuel oil, and natural gas.
There are times when wind generation will yield NO output, and solar nearly none – which means you have to have an equal ammount of ADDED capacity to cover this with the most expensive types of hydorcarbon generation. You simply can’t “turn up” the most efficient generators (nuclear & coal fires types) to cover the top of the demand curve over the course of the day.
More wind power means that you need MORE petroleum based generation, not LESS.
As for what economics is in this case, it is the financial viability of any implemented activity to sustain itself. The blowing winds might be free, but that’s where it stops. To capture it you don’t depend on centralized facilities, you depend on the maximimum distribution of tiny facilities. A HUGE number of fenced in land plots, heavy foundations
… A HUGE number of fenced in land plots, heavy foundations, towers, and generators. NOT efficient by any metric.
It’s driven by nothing more than well intended efforts which simply don’t work. When something doesn’t work, all effort is more than lost, it’s mis-spent and diverted from things that DO work.
Here in the US, nuclear power plant startup was subsidised, but is in private hands. It always has been.
All things are “potentially dangerous” anyway. The magnatude of failures is something to concider. Chernobyl had a morbidity level failure because it was run by idiots, so obviously the problem is luddism and a lack of awareness, not sophistication in engineeering.
Why an island nation replete with coastlined and abandoned and flooded mines doesn’t look at Geothermal energy extraction as a “base load” source is bewildering. It is absolutely predictable in its’ potential capacity.
The problem is, that greenies don’t have a fetish for it the way they do for solar and wind.
The engineering is equally onerous, but it accomplishes the same goals and will let those maths-challenged narcissists sleep at night….
TwinOfRedKen:
most of those satellite emmission are pay per view, the net-streaming went that course as well. BBC World used to be freely available on the web, but no more.
Along with DW, virtually every cable company in the US carries it, but many have dropped them for lack of interest, vice their rate hike.
Hello Ghost
Well done on finding the BBC outside of our island. Wheareas, you are correct in that the BBC can be found outside the UK in developing countries, I would still suggest that it is relatively rare.
I just asked my Swedish colleague if they can get BBC World, he said yes, but then added (without prompting) that CNN is ‘more popular’ and that:
“BBC is boring. Full of pompous Brits’
My point being that one of the previous comments was that the BBC was the best ‘media service on the planet’. Only us pompous Brits could possibly believe that.
….
PS: In Cuba you can see Western media inside hotels for the exclusive use of foreigners. Cubans are not allowed in these hotels.
So the BBC could screen there -if anyone wanted to watch the cr*p.
The Economist reported
“WHEN the BBC published its annual report it revealed the financial results of its global television-news service, BBC World. The service shows no sign of ever making any money. ..BBC World’s problem is that nobody wants it enough.
“Well done on finding the BBC outside of our island. Wheareas, you are correct in that the BBC can be found outside the UK in developing countries, I would still suggest that it is relatively rare.”
Eh? Devolving countries?
Just for the record I’ve watched the BBC in Germany, Holland, France, Italy and Sweden.
To my knowledge the only place of the above where it wasn’t on a basic cable package was Sweden.
My Dutch friend reliably informs me the ratings for the BBC in Holland and Germany are very good in comparison to other foreign language broadcasts. I have no particular gripe with CNN or particular stance on CNN vs. BBC, but I doubt you could conclusively prove that one is more popular than the other.
Re BBC World “The service shows no sign of ever making any money.”
This is surely the most important fact.
BBC World is not the world service paid for from our taxes, is it? It is a loss making service provided from our licence fee – but a service only available to us when abroad.
I remember staying in a hotel in Belgium. The Brit residents lobbied the management to provide an English language channel on the room TV. The management obliged by providing BBC World. All Brits had had enough of that by the following breakfast time.
ghost
Sorry – I prefer the Economist’s judgment to yours. Why should the UK licence fee payers have to support a failed BBC 24 ? It has simply not paid its way – even though that was the original justification for investment in News 24.
Like other BBC digital channels, it is well past time that someone pulled the plug. And pulled the plug on much of the bloated website. And most of local radio. Load of self-preening freeloaders.
Hello Ghost
What are the ratings for the BBC in Holand and Germany?
John: “Sorry – I prefer the Economist’s judgment to yours.”
I wasn’t aware I was disputing the Economist; I was talking about foreign broadcasters that carry BBC channels not the WS.
“Why should the UK licence fee payers have to support a failed BBC 24?”
News 24 gets 3.3 million viewers to SKY’s 3.5 million (per week). Hardly a kicking on the ratings front, although I would have to agree in that I prefer SKY.
However, I honestly believe the BBC website is one of the best sources of information on the web and if you can recommend a more expansive and varied site then I’d like to hear about it.
That should have said “was talking about foreign broadcasters that carry BBC channels not the WS specifically”
Any webpage with the BBC’s budget would be good ghost. I don’t mind the BBC website looks wise, it’s very smart, it’s just the editor’s behind it that get on my nerves.
redken
The point about BBC News 24 is that it costs a fortune and is hardly used. It does not pay its way, and never will. It duplicates the other BBC news services. Sky News has been an integral part of the Sky package and HAS paid its way. And it does not duplicate itself.
The main purpose of News 24 (look back at BBC statements) was to promote the BBC overseas, and to make money from BBC news content. It has FAILED in that purpose.
So roll on its closure, relieve the cost burden on the licence-fee payers.
Likewise your precious BBC website. The mass of BBC licence-fee payers do not use it, so why should they support the £200 million it costs ?