Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
“I had a laugh at failure of the ‘eco pressure groups’ to get people(rent a mob rabble)out on the streets to protest about climate change.”
Be reasonable,it is wet and cold.
Wet and cold in winter? My god, we must do something to stop climate change before it kills us all…
At it again. Young man murdered on a bus in the early hours of Sunday morning in Croydon, by two men. And the identifying characteristics according to the BBC…one wore a red hat. Let’s not mention the other more permanent trait; yes, they were black.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7135049.stm
Pedr Gogg | 09.12.07 – 2:49 am | #
I listened to Something Understood as well.
Madeleine Bunting said:
conversion can exact a high cost • some people lose their jobs, friendships are broken, ties with the family can be stretched to breaking point.
Not a hint that some people get killed for leaving a certain religion.
I wrote down the poem she chose, written by one Salima Hill, and read with breathy, passionate intensity (especially the end of the penultimate line):
Ramia, their only child is coming home.
Not since the day they kissed her and she drove away to become a Muslim has there been such life at the vicarage.
They hurry down to the orchard to call Boo the goose
She runs up like a lamb and pokes her white neck into their basket, on the lookout for food as usual.
In the kitchen cook is podding bowls of peas in front of an open recipe book.
Garnish with watercress, stuff with sage.
She chops up the onions and feels tears run down her cheeks like mercury.
Ramia, who used to be called Jenny walks out of the drawing room.
She calls to Abdulla her son “come out to the yard now” and the boy comes running.
His old grandparents watch him from the window.
He slits the white neck of the goose with a carving knife,
And as the blood runs over his wrists he calls “Allah, Allah”.
His high child’s voice rings out across the fields.
Trofim –
Thanks for the follow-up.
Unfortunately I missed the prog this morning (maybe I’ll listen to the repeat, but something tells me I probably won’t), but why doesn’t any of this surprise me?
keith:
At it again. Young man murdered on a bus in the early hours of Sunday morning in Croydon, by two men. And the identifying characteristics according to the BBC…one wore a red hat. Let’s not mention the other more permanent trait; yes, they were black.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla…don/ 7135049.stm
—————-
Are you absolutely certain? I haven’t seen this reported anywhere else, but I’m sure the BBC wouldn’t lie about a thing like this.
“Police are treating Mr Ward’s death as murder. One man was arrested on Saturday and another was taken into custody today (Sunday).
Two black men were seen running away from the scene and police say they are still looking for suspects.
Police are refusing to say at this stage whether they think the attack was racially motivated, but say they are keeping all options open”…
source::
http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=250080&command=displayContent&sourceNode=250082&home=yes&more_nodeId1=250133&contentPK=19201084
Thanks for this, Anonymous.
I have to say, I’m both shocked and disappointed: the BBC is usually so accurate and assiduous in its reporting. Where am I supposed to go now for impartial and disinterested journalism?
“Just why are these people being allowed back anyway? What is the reason given? No one seems to agree whether they have the right to abode or not. If they do can the government actually legally stop them from returning here? For once I’m not being sarcastic, why are they being allowed back – conspiracy theories excepted?”
Non-Discrimination.
keith:
And the identifying characteristics according to the BBC…one wore a red hat. Let’s not mention the other more permanent trait; yes, they were black.
This really is all the proof you need of BBC bias. Yet it happens on their news site time and time again.
Let’s not expect any of our resident Beeboids to explain why the report failed to mention their colour. Yet how can they dare have the nerve to continue saying they see no multicultural bias at the BBC with facts as brazen as this staring them in the face.
Oliver Twist begins Tues Dec 18, BBC One, 8pm
Phelps admits that liberties have been taken with the original book • that it is not, perhaps, the most faithful of all the versions. For example, in this adaptation Nancy is played by a black actress, Sophie Okonedo. In Dickens’s novel, and in every other take on Oliver Twist, she is white. “But, from the start, I saw Sophie’s face when I wrote the part. And I wanted that character to reflect that Dickens’s London was as multicultural as ours.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3000514.ece
Is it really their job to completely rewrite not only our greatest novelist, but also our history, because it doesn’t comply with their multicultural mission? What next?
What? No part for Muslims in Oliver Twist as well? Surely, Al-Beeb is falling down on the job. Can’t rewrite a major classic of Western literature without inserting Muslims!
“but also our history,”
Well what is history? History is just a fiction, an authoritarian narrative designed to stigmatise and persecute. Truth is patriarchal, “reality” is also an authoritarian weapon.
Of course, back in reality land, when these people thihnk that history is just an invention, they give themselves license to rewrite it however they see fit.
A skilled juggler, W.C. Fields wanted to bring juggling to the role of Mr Micawber in MGM’s legendary adaptation of David Copperfield. The director tried to dissuade him: “There isn’t any juggling in the book, Bill,” to which Fields responded, “Well, I guess Dickens just forgot to write it in.”
And in the same way I guess Dickens just forgot to make Nancy black, Fagin not quite so Jewish, and Oliver himself less “wet”.
Pedr Gogg; Well Nancy is certainly white in the illustrations when Oliver Twist was published for the first time. Still if you have a talented actress who’s black why shouldn’t she play the part these days? Hmmm. Of course a white actor couldn’t play Othello any more…
Fagin did in fact become less “Jewish” in between the magazine and the various book versions. Dickins became very friendly with the Jewish wife of the man he bought a house off and she made it very clear how uncomfortable she found that stuff about Fagin. Read the version as originally published and it’s a very uncomfortable read.
Of course a white actor couldn’t play Othello any more…
That’s the problem. Under multi-culti, our history and culture gets “rewritten”, but not the history of non-Western people — unless it’s to make non-Occidental peoples’ cultures look better than it actually is. Our culture is rewritten and revised, — either to look worse than it is, or, as in this instance, to look like it isn’t really ours, but everyone’s. Other peoples’ cultures are rewritten to look better than they are, or to emphasize how much they “belong” to the particular ethnic group that produced them. That’s why mulitculturalism is so hated by the ordinary people of the West — because it’s not an “enrichment” as practiced by the Gramscian left — it’s a “replacement.” Of our culture, and literally — of us, which the Gramsican left calls “white people”.
David Gregory:
Actually, Nancy was white right up until the most recent adaptation (whenever that was).
But if you accept that non-whites can’t play Othello, I have to tell you that as a Jew I totally resent the goy Spall playing Fagin. Are there no “talented” Jewish actors who could have played the part?
But as to the original version of Fagin being an “uncomfortable read” – uncomfortable for who? You’re making the classic mistake of judging the past by the present.
I’m sure the mid-Victorians would have been bitterly ashamed of themselves if they only knew how much our later – and vastly more enlightened – age was going to disapprove of them, but here again, I guess somebody forgot to tell them.
Indeed Petr. I am married to a Jewish man, but it would never in a million years occur to me to be “offended” by the portrayal of a Jewish character in a novel that was written 160 years ago!
Come bye and see us • sheep are back on TV
Real sheepdog trialling is back on television for the first time in six years • and those millions of viewers who once watched One Man And His Dog can again see that wonderful relationship between shepherd, border collie and a “packet” of recalcitrant sheep.
Of course, the return is not to the BBC • the Corporation went to the dogs years ago. No, it is being launched as Come Bye on Horse And Country television and will feature 15 hour-long programmes. For those people interested in countryside issues, it promises to be a treat.
Beyond the warmth of the welcome we received around Britain and Ireland, one thing also struck me: the resentment at the way the One Man And His Dog series had been axed in 1999.
The BBC had moved the time of broadcast to 3pm on Saturdays when most country people were out of the house. I complained at the time that it was a cheap move to reduce the viewing figures. Sure enough, the audience plunged and the axe fell.
I organised a viewers’ revolt, during which thousands of fans wrote in. The BBC’s metrocentric elite reluctantly brought back a dumbed-down Christmas special, arguing that it would help ordinary viewers to understand sheepdog trialling. Obviously the BBC thinks that most of its viewers are thick.
In 2001 I was sacked from this show “because of my attitude • and my other activities”. Clearly the BBC did not like my participation in anti-EU politics and countryside marches.
Since then, I have discovered that I am considered ‘no-go’ in areas of the BBC, including Question Time, in contravention of the BBC’s own regulations. But of course after recent revelations about the lack of honesty and integrity in various parts of the BBC we can expect nothing different.
In my view, the Corporation is riddled with arrogance and incompetence. Its values can best be shown by its dislike of One Man And His Dog and its love of overpaid celebrities.
But who cares • real sheepdog trialling is finally back. Norman Lorton, chief executive of the International Sheep Dog Society, is delighted: “With all the bad news that farmers have to contend with today, it’s good to have something back on television that they can look forward to and enjoy.”
I can only agree and say: “Come bye.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=500578&in_page_id=1773
“Anonymous: ”
Come bye and see us • sheep are back on TV
Robin – welcome back to the fold, so to speak.
On character ethnicity replacement done for reasons beyond availability of specific actors: Simone de Beauvoir (Cultural Marxism and extra-empirical Utopianist)
[On the elimination of the “category of the oppressed”]
Simone de Beauvoir: “Neither the aged nor women, nor anyone by virtue of their race, class, ethnicity or religion would find themselves rendered inessential.“
By rendered inessential, they mean alienated in its disturbing, anti-individual, Hegelian sense. From which we can reasonably conclude that Cultural Marxists:
1. Rely on the West as a laboratory for their ideas
1a. Deify the West (Deify in a Hegelian sense) by using it to unalienate people (from the grand realization of freedom) by “including” as many as possible (hence multiculturalism and the extra-utilitarian actor replacement being discussed here)
2. Yet, despite requiring the West as a platform for their demented scheme, they will end up destroying it, as we have seen with Cultural Marxist BBC openly aiding Islamic terrorists.
Correction: 1a. Deify the West (Deify in a Hegelian sense) by using it to unalienate people (into the grand realization of freedom) by “including” as many as possible (hence multiculturalism and the extra-utilitarian actor replacement being discussed here)
David Gregory:
“Still if you have a talented actress who’s black why shouldn’t she play the part these days? Hmmm”
I’m sure David it was the very reason that you would like a muslim reporter working at midlands today.
Nothing to do with what is best for the part, but what’s best for the agenda.
Director blasts ‘BBC ignorance’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/09/bbc.tvnews
Presumably Bill Sykes turns out to be a BNP supporter and the murder is a racist one.
“I wanted that character to reflect that Dickens’s London was as multicultural as ours”
As multicultural as ours, eh ? Let’s just revisit the recently released Cabinet papers of Churchill’s early 50s administration.
“”David Maxwell-Fyfe, the home secretary, reported that the total of “coloured people” in Britain had risen from 7,000 before the second world war to 40,000 at the time of writing.”
If Victorian London was as multicultural as today yet there were only 7,000 ‘coloured people’ in the whole UK in the 30s, then there must have been some kind of giant massacre or mass emigration in the Edwardian era or the 20s – which newspapers and historians failed to spot. Were they all sent to France in WWI ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7135729.stm
In this report of a mass shooting in Colorado, even though the story reports that the guy has been caught (it’s the HEADLINE for pete’s sake), they still saw fit to mention that the shooter was white. You know as well as I do that there is no way in a million years that the BBC, in reporting that a killer had been caught, would mention his name if he were black. Yet whomever wrote this story could not miss such a great opportunity to let all of their anti-white left wing friends know that “it was a white male, just as we suspected”.
They also did this in their reporting of Bill Phillips, the man that shot two NASA employees dead then killed himself. Even though the guy was dead, they gave a full physical description which of course confirmed his Caucasian origin to those who had to know. That time, they changed the story later presumably after complaints. I wonder how long it will take them to change this web page? I just made an official complaint. SO SICK of the continual far-left template that the BBC forces everything into. It’s time for heads to roll.
Laben
Yes, but I think you are showing racist credentials at least.
I take your point, but coloured means peoples originally from African or people from the sub continent, only.
The term black is an intentional insult to both, but thats another issue.
What London was then and is even more so now is multi ethnic. It will only ever by multi-racial if us majority white people force it to be so.
We had Jewish Chinese Italian Polish Argentinian Spanish and many other ethnic communities even before the war in London.
Many of these people were running a very disproportionate amount of the shops and businesses for a long time.
The London jewellery trade for example was dominated by Italian and still is almost completely, by Jewish and Israeli immigrants.
How many corner shops do we think would still exists in London especially, if it were not for massive post war coloured immigration?
Come to think about it, how many shops or small companies would there be at all in London if not for massive post war immigration?
Any one with eyes and ears would plainly answer, “virtually none.”
If the British people were not so lazy or brainwashed by the BBC and the education system into believing that trade were some kind of unclean dishonest activity. Many immigrants would have either not come at all, or gone home quite sharpish.
Its the establishment that encourages them to come here to keep the existing population stupid poor and dependent on state handouts.
They give us their lives, hard work and ambitions. We give them a disease ridden NHS rubbish weather and generally a more crap education then they can get in their own country.
When not throwing racist stereo types at them the rest of the time.
No wonder WHATSOEVER many of their children end up hating this country when they grow up.
Quite frankly I am none to keen on this fascist authoritarian hell hole myself, and I and all of my great grandparents at least, were all born here.
Sorry should read Multi-cultural.
Atlas Shrugged is sleepy now and is typing aimlessly.
“Its the establishment that encourages them to come here to keep the existing population stupid poor and dependent on state handouts”
I expect in terms of pure numbers the native Brits are the biggest recipients of benefits. But a truer indication of who is “stupid poor and dependent” on benefits would be the proportion of each ‘community’ who are claiming benefits.
I tried to search for statistics but I the websites are tedious and arcane.
“They give us their lives, hard work and ambitions. We give them a disease ridden NHS rubbish weather and generally a more crap education then they can get in their own country.”
No most came for the money,because their countries are even worse.
Nothing like a bit of self-promotion:
‘World views on a free press mixed’
Of those interviewed, 56% thought that freedom of the press was very important to ensure a free society.
But 40% said it was more important to maintain social harmony and peace, even if it meant curbing the press’s freedom to report news truthfully.
So there you have it.
But some developed countries which strongly believed in press freedom were critical of their own media’s honesty and accuracy.
In the United States, Britain and Germany, only around 29% of those interviewed thought their media did a good job in reporting news accurately.
I wonder why that might be, BBC?
When will they get it?
Wind farm mania:
The BBC1 Breakfast Time reporter covering the government’s decision to wreck our coastline with hundreds more wind farms is delighting in ramming down our throats what decisive and important work this is. There’s vague mention that turbines are inefficient (because…er, it’s not windy enough and they cost a fortune)but his choice of language leaves little doubt that we should accept that these monstrous eyesores are necessary for the good of the planet. And there’s no arguing with that, is there?
Not as unsightly as nuclear power plants Robin, and much more efficient actually, once decommissioning and storage/disposal of radioactive waste is taken into account.
Given that the measures were backed by all the main political parties, including the Conservatives, I don’t think there was much call for a negative slant by the BBC.
If anything, the BBC reporting on the wind farms seems much less slanted in favour than the Daily Mail – perhaps you ought to be cornering them first?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=500893&in_page_id=1965
Archbishop Roger Harrabin of the Church of Global Warming (White City branch) preaches on Today this morning.
Sprinkled with “Many say” etc, he sombrely informs us that unless we stop flying NOW, then mass extinctions are on the way (still every cloud has a silver lining – maybe that also includes the BBC).
Just listen to Harrabin, and tell me in all honesty that this is not simple view peddling.
BBC Breakfast time was on fine form this morning in the 8:20am to 8:30am section I usually end up watching. First up we the daily global warming piece this time how to have a “low carbon” xmas report with the all the propaganda platitudes mouthed by children who know no better.
But the 2nd report that interested me was on the regional Look North segment about attempts to stop drink spiking in the pubs of Hull. A breathless reporterette told us how women were having their drinks spiked so they could be sexually assaulted with a drug and mens were spiked so they could be robbed. It was all rather odd though as their were no victims interviewed and I don’t think the Police appeared either. An odd coincidence as over the weekend I had spoken with an A & E nurse who told me in this city they had never tested anyone and found this drug present in their blood stream. Of course plenty of people end up in hospital not knowing what had happened to them but good old alcohol does that to you. Thinking about it I don’t think I can ever remember reading a report of anyone being convicted of this crime either. It made me wonder if we were seeing a report about an urban legend or meme that now has a life of its own. Either way a little more fact checking should have got to the root of this.
Matthew:
Not as unsightly (etc)…
Point number one: The Daily Mail is not a puiblic service broadcaster and is not obliged to carry balanced reporting in the way that the BBC is.
Point number two: Journalists almost everywhere, including on this occasion, those at the Daily Mail, have been seduced by climate change propaganda and misinformation about renewable energy. For a look at how more balanced reporting might look, have a glance at Richard North’s take on this issue on the EU Referendum blog:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
My point is that the BBC, even though it is a public service broadcaster, adopts an unobjective pro-climate change stance far too often (as is reflected in the Jeremy Paxman quote on the BBC Bias site). The sort of perspective raised by Richard North scarcely figures, and then only as an afterthought.
Further evidence of this kind of reporting was on this morning’s Today, from Roger Harrabin, who had almost five minutes of airtime to present almost unqualified pro-climate change views, and put across the absurd notion that because a majority of scientists believed something, they must be right.
Point number 3: The debate about nuclear energy is a separate issue. Again, we are plied with misinformation from green groups which is often swallowed wholesale by the BBC.
As for personal choice, on the facts I have read, I would prefer 10 new nuclear power stations over 5,000 monstrous turbines. Despite all its critics(and I was a reporter who covered for the BBC parts of the Windscale inquiry in the late 1970s), nuclear power is a safer and ‘greener’ form of mass energy generation than almost anything else.
Afghan, US and British forces are engaged in a fourth day of fighting with the Taleban for control of Musa Qala in southern Afghanistan.
Afghan and Nato forces are trying to recapture the town, the only major Afghan centre in Taleban hands.
World service reports overnight stated only that the BBC had been informed “by local sources” that 20 civilians had been killed.
So again we kill no enemy, but instead take our news reports from them (what other local souce could there be, but the Taliban, who control the town?). Lord Haw Haw was hanged for reporting ther news from the enemy perspective.
The online report doesn’t repeat the WS, saying Twelve Taleban fighters, two children and a British soldier are reported killed in the battle. A second Nato soldier died in the area on Sunday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7135850.stm
A disappointing non-BBC aspect is that despite claims that the Taliban were surrounded, the Taleban have already indicated that they will not hold the town at all costs and are expected to retreat when the assault begins. & I have heard reports that the Taliban are already leaving the town, having dropped their weapons they become civilians with freedom of travel.
A Ipsos MORI poll asking “Which three of these topics do you find most worrying in Britain?” shows a greatly different order of priorities among the public than the thrust of BBC reporting, e.g.”Threats against environment” comes joint 7th (with Taxes) on 17% having fallen since 1997.
The runaway winners are Crime & violence” & “immigration control”. The Power of Nightmares is in a poor third place with a reduced score since 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7133508.stm
Will:
Note, too, how the survey is placed at the bottom of the story. If concerns about climate change had been rising sharply (rather than immigration control), I bet this would have been not only the lead story on the website but also on the main broadcast bulletins.
Pedr Gogg
“But as to the original version of Fagin being an “uncomfortable read” – uncomfortable for who? You’re making the classic mistake of judging the past by the present.”
Oh yes, I found it very uncomfortable to read. But the point I was making was so did Dickins in the end. He altered the text (calling Fagin “Fagin” rather than “the Jew” for example) because of his friendship with a Jewish couple (in particular the wife) who he brought a house from.
Reg Hammer: Oh I can’t win on here some days can I? 😉 The point about a Muslim reporter is that we clearly missed the Dispatches story and a Muslim reporter would help stop that happening again. Of course you could read it as slavish pc tokenism, but I would politely suggest (given how much admiration there is for Dispatches round here) that is a bit perverse!
“‘World views on a free press mixed’
Of those interviewed, 56% thought that freedom of the press was very important to ensure a free society.
But 40% said it was more important to maintain social harmony and peace, even if it meant curbing the press’s freedom to report news truthfully.”
Presumably the BBC will use the large (presumably mainly non-Western) minority who favour lies, omission & distortion in their news to justify its own practices, as a major global media player “reflecting the needs of an increasingly-interconnected but volatile world” or some such.
R
The issue of the massive increase in coastal wind farms is not due to global warming, that is a fake issue for this, the real issue is briefly covered late by the BBC here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7135930.stm
The government are not that stupid they don’t see the real reasons
“I do not want in 20 years’ time to find that whether the lights go on in the morning is down to some foreign government or someone else.”
The conservatives recognise it as well, the article just about acknowledges that too.
We do have a windy island and should be looking at more of our own resources and less reliance being held to ransom by unacceptable foreign governments.
The vast majority are all in favour until they are set to be sited near their homes when they suddenly become bothered about the impact on birdlife.
As a fall back they now look at the coast, as in most cases it wont be too near anyones nimby homes.
The real question is whether we are prepared to have so many wind farms affecting the look of the coast or whether we run the risk of our country running out of its own fuel resources having to cap in hand all the time in the future to Russia, Iran or Saudi Arabia. Its an important question.
The BBC is blindly on its MMGW crusade and so it is bias, but in this case at least in a sense even if by accident it has got the coverage at least partly correct.
Anyone see HIGNFY this week? Hilarious. In a desparate effort to ensure that no-one said anything nasty about the current government re. Northern Crock, the economy, Donorgate, Ken and Jasper etc etc etc. the Beeb decided that no-one should say anything at all about anything to do with politics. Well that was fair wasn’t it? Nobody could claim it was biased because they didn’t say anything nasty about David Cameron either! Poor old Ian Hislop had nothing to say at all whilst a relieved looking Charlie Brooker from the Guardian had a lot to say about the old bloke with a canoe. We were informed that a certain Mr Abrahams has a pink statue of Elvis.
It’s all hands to the sinking ship of HMS NuLabour at the Beeb as they nail their future to Gordon Brown’s mast! When Labour finally sinks beneath the waves of sleaze and corruption the Beeb is determined to go down with it. Nothing so edifying as defending the indefensible is there Beeboids?
I haven’t seen anyone else picking up Robin Page’s thoughtful Country diary piece in Saturday’s Telegraph in which, in commenting on a widespread media malaise, he mentions the typically un-even-handed way that the BBC handled the juicy, if insubstantial, implicit accusation that Prince Harry had shot or been involved in shooting two hen harriers.
Here’s another attempt to post a clickable link (!):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/08/eadiary108.xml
I think it worked!
Ryan, is that true? Did nothing on all the current scandals at all come up? Astounding! And to think this is the show that used to take the piss out of Iain Duncan Smith every week, just for having a double-barrel surname. But when the government is engaged in criminal activities, suddenly criticism and jokes are below the belt.
The dumb one says all that needs to be said about Beeboids and Christmas.
http://www.houseofdumb.blogspot.com/
For those of you who are getting just a little too worked up about Government ‘plans’ to gild our coastlines with enough sea bird chewing wind turbines to ‘power every home in Britain’ you can relax – with the exception of a few ‘Soviet’ prestige projects most of these farms will never materialise.
The government, whatever it may delude itself (and the general public) into thinking does not control the energy agenda. So, who does? Well, here’s a clue or four…
1) The same organisation that ‘volunteered’ to fill the energy gap created by the renewables sector’s (projected) failure to achieve it’s 20% supply quota by 2012.
2) The same organisation that successfully lobbied the BBC to screen a sycophantic and desperately one sided documentary about itself as a BBC SCHOOLS PRODUCTION and even managed to have this propaganda repeated despite a BBC Board embargo on the film (the BBC claimed the second showing was due to ‘an administrative error’).
3) The same organisation that now insinuates itself into an increasing number of broadcasts on climate change presenting itself as a ‘carbon neutral’ energy supplier.
4) The same organisation that has patronised and funded the whole climate shebang since the 1980’s…
Most of you will know by now who I am talking about. The one’s who don’t are environmentalists who have been brainwashed into thinking that all the corporate money has gone into the wrong side of the argument.
Understandable really, I’d stay in denial too if I’d been had by my arch nemesis – BRITISH NUCLEAR FUELS.
We do have a windy island and should be looking at more of our own resources and less reliance being held to ransom by unacceptable foreign governments. [SNIP]
The real question is whether we are prepared to have so many wind farms affecting the look of the coast or whether we run the risk of our country running out of its own fuel resources having to cap in hand all the time in the future to Russia, Iran or Saudi Arabia. Its an important question.
The BBC is blindly on its MMGW crusade and so it is bias, but in this case at least in a sense even if by accident it has got the coverage at least partly correct.
BaggieJonathan | 10.12.07 – 11:14 am | #
This thread could go of-topic if we are not careful but I disagree with BJ on this and think that actually the Beeb have reported it a bit better than they generally report climate change/environmental issues.
Wind power is an incredibly iffy “solution” to either climate change or energy supply problems. The variability in wind input as winds drop too much or get too strong requires matching provision of quick response fill-in generation. Some of that could come from hydro power but most must come from gas/oil/coal burning.
Nuclear, though by far the best long term solution to the problems either of energy supply or carbon emissions, is essentially baseline supply and can’t be turned on and off like a light bulb.
Dependence on wind power thus involves the cost of creating comprehensive back-up of non-wind, generally non-renewable, generating capacity to fill in when wind just isn’t doing the business. And, by the way, if you talk to National Grid engineers they are doubtful if we have the technology to manage a grid significantly dependent on wind.
The Beeb did this morning on R4 broadcast a clear technical criticism of the Minister’s proposals – though they have not pursued the implicit question: whether he just doesn’t understand his job or whether he knows he was talking misleading nonsense.
BaggieJonathan | 10.12.07 – 11:14 am |
I think we’ve had this debate here before. IIRC it would take 60k 2MW wind turbines to replace the current fossil fuel output for the UK.
But memory being what it is …
We have some lovely uninterupted views of some of the prettiest countriside England can offer. We can also see Didcot power station, if we try hard. Didcot is capable of pushing out 5-6GW of power at full tilt. Thats around 2.5k-3k 2MW turbines. Actually it’s 5k-6k turbines as 2MW turbines can only produce 1MW of power. I’m not really sure I’d want to replace the hideously ugly Didcot power station with 6 thousand turbines.
However there is an alternative that would be to give each village its own 1MW turbine to churn out 500kW of electricity per hour. Sited somewhere sympathetic (like that would happen!) these would not be too ugly. As an example the 2MW turbine on the M4 at Reading looks great in the place it is in but would be an eyesore on Ben Nevis.
Of course each farm would need a non wind powered station to turn the turbines up to speed and they would not work all the time but I can’t say they’d be worse than more or the same number of Didcots/Draxs.
Nuclear, though by far the best long term solution to the problems either of energy supply or carbon emissions, is essentially baseline supply and can’t be turned on and off like a light bulb
What? That is precisely what you can do with a nuclear plant, its output is controllable from zero to full power by simply inserting or withdrawing the control rods.
What you cannot do quickly is fire up a coal or oil fired powerplant which means that to provide cover such plants must be always be running and consuming fuel although they are not necessarily spinning the turbines.