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.
Good god, you guys pay 400 million bucks for BBC online?
I wonder how much the (D)HYS team gets out of that largess.
What do they spend it on — goldplated keyboards? You certainly can’t tell the cost by the product. Even their photo essays are often sent in by readers — for free!
Yikes!
Susan – feel our pain !!!
We are FORCED to pay for this guff.
BBC Online costs are set out in this article which i found on Google. It not only wastes our money – very lavishly – it crowds out competitors.
http://ojr.org/ojr/business/1080177475.php
Ghost
There are some ways of determining whether the BBC is more popular than CNN. I have not been able to find out anything on Europe (yet). I could only find this market research survey.
http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Detailed/49072.html
Which suggests that CNN reaches three times as many arab viewers as our dear old Auntie (despite the BBC being the worlds ‘most respected’ broadcaster).
CNN was the biggest contributor to the democratic party in the recent election. I am right wing (on economics anyway). I do not mind left wing media channels. But they should be honest about it. And I should have the right to choose, whether I watch right or left wing channels. Hell, I might even watch a left wing channel (like CNN).
The BBC is second rate and cr*p. Quite simply I should not have to pay for it. And I sincerely belive that the BBC in its continual plugging of the politically correct view is damaging my country.
Joe N.
Your claim that you can’t run a national grid with 20% wind power as I suggested is demonstrably false. See this extract below about Denmark’s electricity supply:
“Wind power is also important in Denmark because it is a green, clean and renewable energy. Scandinavians are known for their advanced environmental policies, and wind power has given the Danes a way to reduce their dependency on polluting fuels: 20% of Denmark’s electricity consumption is covered by clean electricity produced at Danish wind farms. At times, wind power supply is able to cover the total electricity consumption of the whole west of Denmark.
(continued)
(continued)
The Danish Wind Industry: Leader in research and innovation
The Danish wind power industry is the world’s largest. 90% of the wind turbines manufactured in Denmark is sold to the international markets. In 2003, the Danish manufacturers had a total world market share of approximately 38%, generating a combined turnover of almost 3 billion Euro and maintaining over 20,000 people employed in the industry, from wind turbine factories to maintenance and research
The Danes aren’t fools. They now how to run a successful economy. You failed entirely to address my point about the economic benefits.
Re: http://ojr.org/ojr/business/1080177475.php
“So far, so good, but the BBC is publicly funded. For 2002 it received ?2.6 billion ($4.75 billion) from the compulsory TV license fee”
Now forgive my possibly dodgy maths, but didn’t they get that figure by guessing? The total revenue (I think) could only be that much if nearly everybody in the UK bought a TV licence. In any case I think I would need a point of comparison to decide if the Beeb website is overpriced or not. Any figures out there?
The Guardian website costs one-twentieth of the BBC. Try googling for the info.
Erm, thanks John I’d never had thought of that. I want reliable figures not like the guff in that last link you provided, as I might as well have made them up myself!!
David, as I said you cannot shutdown/mothball a single regular power station no matter how many windmills you operate. So I ask you, what’s the point in having them at all other than to appear to be doing something for the environment? (note: APPEAR)
Andrew –
This from a website on wind power addresses some of the question of intermittency (in a USA context) which I think lies behind your assertion about closing pwoer stations:
“As for the large utilities, wind power is not a large enough energy source at the current time for intermittency to be a problem. Given that the electric grid connects large areas of land together (1/2 a continent), it may be found that the lack of wind in one area at a particular time may be made up by wind from another area and vice versa. In other words, an overall balance in the system may be maintained.
Another way of dealing with the intermittent nature of wind power (and other renewable technologies) is to use the exectricity for electrolysis. Running a current through water results in the seperation of the hydrogen and oxygen. Using the hydrogen for fuel recombines the hydrogen and oxygen, forming water.”
I also see from the net that there is research into fly wheel batteries.
theghostofredken – whose dodgy maths?
“The total revenue (I think) could only be that much if nearly everybody in the UK bought a TV licence.”
£2.6bn at £121 (pre increase) per licence = 21.5 million licences. Population of UK c60m?
There were already 22 million UK households several years ago.
The last figure I saw for the BBC budget was £2.6 billion. With licence fee increases going higher than the rate of inflation. For basic-rate pensioner, the fee now represents about 5% of his income ? Disgraceful.
“£2.6bn at £121 (pre increase) per licence = 21.5 million licences. Population of UK c60m?”
Think about all the people who aren’t eligible, pensioners etc (over 75’s anyway). Also bear in mind that (I guess) the average number of people living in one house would probably be about 3 or 4.
Nah, still think they’ve pulled that figure out their arse.
That said:
8 TV channels.
1 massive website.
11 radio stations plus countless local stations.
Any private company would surely have to spend billions to upkeep the above. I think the licence fee is a bit steep (and there should be more concessions) but you do get fair bit for your money.
redken
Are you still disputing the £2.6 billion received from licence fees ?
Shows how hazy you are about the BBC. Try checking the Beeb’s own Annual Report ? :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/
and this pie chart shows how much goes on non-mainstream activities (ie the Beeb spending money like a drunk sailor) –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/
Yes David, they can run off 20% off of wind SOME ot the time – ramp up spot generation, and buy it off their neighbors who burn coal, oil, gas, and run nuke plants the rest of the time.
It’s a boondoggle. Denmark has a population of less than 6 million people and very little industry. In other words, less than Brooklyn, NY.
Hello Ghost
How come you can never point to any facts to support your arguments? And when you do come up with anything remotely concrete it is usually wrong.
Have you thought of applying to the BBC?
Lee
LOL !!! Touche
Joe N. –
The section I quoted was talking about a continental country like the USA – not a small country like Denmark.
You haven;t even attempted to dispute the economic benefits of wind power I notice.
David, once again, how many power plants can you shutdown thanks to wind power?? Ie, what difference does it make to emissions of CO2 for example????
Andrew –
You seem to be a very slow learner…
Here is an example of how a wind power project in New York will affect CO2 prodcution:
“EPA’s wind energy commitment at its 290 Broadway offices is equal to 6.2 million kilowatt-hours of wind energy for one year, which is equivalent to the annual electrical output of one and a half of the wind turbines at the Fenner project.
Compared to the average generation mix in the spot market of the New York power pool, EPA’s commitment is equivalent to the reduction of over 1,000 barrels of oil and more than 7 million pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) that would be emitted into the atmosphere annually. The CO2 reduction is equivalent to the amount removed from the air by 450,000 trees or the amount emitted by cars driven 6.3 million miles annually. In addition, the switchover will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide by an estimated 34,500 pounds and nitrogen oxides by 12,000 pounds annually.”
(continued…)
Here’s a good story about the awful blight of windpower on a beautiful Scottish island :
http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/
Andrew –
My continuation never got on there unfrotauntely. I was going on to say you seem to be basing your argument that no power station can be closed on a misunderstanding (based on the accepted fact that wind power in any one location will nto be available 100% of the time.)
You fail to take into account:
1. At a continental level wind is always on the go somewhere and the electricity produced can be trasnferred via grids.
2. Wind power can be stored.
3. Power stations do not always need to operate at 100%.
4. I have never argued wind power should be more than about 20% of the total.
Taking the above together you will see it is possible to substitute wind power for conventional generation and close some pwoer stations. However even if you couldn’t it would still be worthwhile as you would be producing less CO2.
John in London
Every form of energy production blights some part of the globe. Nothing is cost free. We can have a reasoned debate about where wind power installations shoudl be located but that is a subsidiary argument. Personally I would like us to develop off shore facilities if that can be done economically.
Andrew –
Further info for you to digest on how you can close power plants:
“””However, despite the fact that the wind is variable and sometimes does not blow at all, wind plants do increase the overall statistical probability that a utility system will be able to meet demand requirements. A rough rule of thumb is that the capacity value of adding a wind plant to a utility system is about the same as the wind plant’s capacity factor multiplied by its capacity. Thus, a 100-megawatt wind plant with a capacity factor of 35% would be similar in capacity value to a 35-MW conventional generator. For example, in 2001 the Colorado Public Utility Commission found the capacity value of a proposed 162-MW wind plant in eastern Colorado (with a 30% capacity factor) to be approximately 48 MW. For more information on the Commission’s finding, see http://www.eere.energy.gov/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/xcel_wind_decision.pdf“””
So it would seem for every 3 plants’ worth of wind power y
Of all the things you list, the flywheel is the only viable means of storing energy. To make the wind getup work, look at how much one has to impose upon the power system:
Grids are not continental. Each point is served by, and serves roughly a 500 mile radius.
There is a huge amount of energy lost in the production of Hydrogen. It becomes a commodity of variable value because its’ production would be intermittent, and consistent with the highest wind periods – when electricity in this model is most abundant anyway.
A wind genareation system serving 20 pct of a region’s supply has to be matched with generation capacity of another type which sits idle. This isn’t just to cover the base load, it is to cover the base load during peak draw.
If you’re really worried about CO2, you need to euthenize all cows, and possibly some people. This on a hunch that CO2 creates a lethal level warming, as opposed to being concurrent with warming.
Lee: Ho-ho, I laughed so hard I nearly…
With rapier-wit like that you could put Quentin Letts out of job.
Joe N.
Clearly you know more than these energy experts employed by the US Govt. (who as the Left always tell us are in any case completely controlled by the oil industry!).
How many days in a year do you think that a complete absence of wind coincides with peak demand in the UK? My guess would be no more than 10 days.
The point being made I think is that one can afford to plan a system on that deals with those rare events on what would otherwise be an uneconomic basis. Are you saying it is impossible to transfer electricity more than 500 miles? Anyway 500 miles is a long way. That’s a thousand miles in either direction, so your wind absence area is now having to stretch for a thousand miles – and the credibility of your argument is being similarly stretched.
As for cows producing CO2, I think I am right in saying that they are not adding that amount to the atmosphere. The grass got its CO2 from the atmosphere – essentially it is a balanced account. If the cows didn’