to be sceptical about man made climate change

[Brioche201]

.. to a layperson like myself the evidence does not seem robust (record antarctic ice caps) .Even if it were true 'the climate' is such a complicated thing affected by thousands of factors.Is it likely that changing just one or 2 of the factors that are within out control would make a difference (or even that the difference would be in the right direction)
Do you still believe in man made climate change or think it is mainly rooted in politics?

To be fair, wind turbines do need to be situated away from bird migratory routes and feeding or overwintering areas, and the RSPB will be a statutory consultee for any large wind turbine scheme. And it's moderate, steady wind that you want, not high winds as turbines will cut out once wind speed reaches a certain threshold.

Maybe we could also start fixing the carbon we use as solid matter instead of releasing it to the atmosphere.

We can grow plants, turn them into 'biochar' (like charcoal, so there's plenty of solid carbon still there) and bury them. Bit tedious. Compressing them to diamonds sounds much more fun.

Cote

'We are investors in win energy and I can assure you that they are built on top of a very windy and bare hill where there are no houses, no trees, and certainly no bird habitat. They have paid for themselves in the first 10 years and now are nearly pure profit.'

They have paid for themselves as the UK government pays about 3x more for wind generated electricity than fossil fuel generated. This generous subsidy adds 30% plus to everyone's fuel bills, including those least able to pay.

Those talking about 'needing permanent subsidy' really are clueless. At least two renewable technologies are likely to achieve grid parity before 2020 - sooner if the gas price increases.

That's the thing with renewables. They're better for energy security and affordability in the long run, because you're not relying on importing fuels from foreign powers, which may not always be terribly friendly.

And talking about 'wind' rather than distinguishing between onshore and offshore can be misleading; the output and efficiency (and cost!) are very different.

Larry, where on earth are you getting your 'facts' from?

If you're talking about feed in tariffs, they added 1% to the average bill in 2014. Large-scale renewables through the Renewables Obligation added 3%.

(Source: DECC

Cote - "We are investors in win energy and I can assure you that they are built on top of a very windy and bare hill where there are no houses, no trees, and certainly no bird habitat. They have paid for themselves in the first 10 years and now are nearly pure profit."

What on earth are you talking about. They only pay for themselves if they are subsidised. Without that subsidy no one would invest.

Jassy - Great! If renewables technology can pay for itself and stand on its own two feet on a par with gas fired technology by 2020 then lets cut the subsidy now and wait until then and build whatever is cheapest. Its only 5 years away. In the meantime lets shut down all the coal fired power stations and build gas fired ones. It all makes sense if your figures are correct.

Problem is 'grid parity' almost always ignores the cost of back up power stations required to deal with intermittancy of renewables and on top of that ignores the cost of building the transmission lines out the remote offshore locations where the turbines stand. Fine if the true full cost is being covered I'm all for renewables. Not if they require a subsidy.

Would you care to point me to the figures you are using?

larry - We are not in the UK.

You have spectacularly missed the point of my post which was that you are wrong to criticise wind turbines for being noisy, ugly, and especially destructive to bird habitats (which is completely untrue).

"ignores the cost of back up power stations required to deal with intermittancy of renewables and on top of that ignores the cost of building the transmission lines out the remote offshore locations where the turbines stand"

I don't know how these things happen in the UK, but our wind turbines feed INTO the power grid, and never take out of it.

And they are on mainland (not offshore), at a place where there was already a functioning electricity grid.

Jassy - Great! If renewables technology can pay for itself and stand on its own two feet on a par with gas fired technology by 2020 then lets cut the subsidy now and wait until then and build whatever is cheapest. Its only 5 years away. In the meantime lets shut down all the coal fired power stations and build gas fired ones. It all makes sense if your figures are correct.

Well, first, the government has got there ahead of you.

Second, the point of subsidy is to help those technologies scale up and become competitive. Unlike subsidies for, say, North Sea oil and gas. Funnily enough, no one seems to include the cost of subsidising our oil and gas industry in the cost of gas-fired power. Let alone costs associated with emissions and adapting to climate change.

Problem is 'grid parity' almost always ignores the cost of back up power stations required to deal with intermittancy of renewables and on top of that ignores the cost of building the transmission lines out the remote offshore locations where the turbines stand. Fine if the true full cost is being covered I'm all for renewables. Not if they require a subsidy.

I'm imagining you're anti-nuclear then, given that base load new nuclear (from 2023) is more expensive than onshore. I personally favour a combination of new nuclear and lots and lots of investment in big battery technology for the (distant) point at which base load gas is history.

Would you care to point me to the figures you are using

Lots on gov.uk on this - the latest CfD auction is a good place to start, as is the government's figures around changes to the LCF.

I would like to know if people whining about the subsidies for clean energy have checked out what your country's invasions and continuing wars have cost you in the past 10+ years.

Cote - the intermittency of the wind turbines putting electric into the grid is the problem. Not that they take electric out of the grid.

Whenever a wind turbine is turning another thermal power station has to be running in the background burning fuel ready to run at a moments notice. That costs money. When the wind drops the back up power staion has to start instantly. Ramping a coal fired power station up so that it is hot enough takes 6 hours, a gas turbine takes 3 hours. They don't sit cold ready to switch on like a car parked on the drive. They are burning fuel all the time, spinning already, synchronised to the grid.

There are gas turbines called 'wind chasers' in the UK that do nothing else but run continuously ready to back up the wind turbines. One very large one on the edge of a national park was built specifically for that purpose.

Ego - if it is a choice between spending $100 billion now and waiting 5 years and spending $10 billion I wait five years. We cant ignore the cost. That is what socialism does. Pretends there is a magic money tree. We cant just pretend the cost is irrelevant. There are too many competing needs. If we take £5 billion of public money to subsidise renewables that is £5 billion we are not able to spend on schools, roads, hospitals, pensions, etc.

Jassy - I am against nuclear on the basis of its cost being 3 - 4 times greater than combined cycle as turbine technology. Let alone the enormous cost of environmental impact in a nuclear accident. That still doesn't make offshore wind a sensible economic alternative. - its cost is still far higher than combined cycle gas turbine technology.

I accept that climate change occurs naturally.

I accept that mankind has probably accelerated a natural process.

I do not accept the 'save the planet' tag line - the planet will look after itself fine as it has done for billions of years. It is not about saving the planet, it's about saving mankind. Few people are honest about that. I'm not sure we're worthy of it...

I am not convinced that recycling, car emissions, etc. will make enough difference. I do it because I like to reduce waste and minimise our rubbish in landfills not because I think it will have any effect on climate change.

How many of these changes will slow down what man has done but not actually prevent the inevitable?

If we don't find an alternative to fossil fuels we will all run out of energy by the end of the century.

Doesn't matter what you think of wind and solar power - they will end up as our only option at some point.

Why not start working it out now instead of waiting until only the world's elite can afford power and water.
Oh and metal of course - copper will run out by the end of the century as well.

"Whenever a wind turbine is turning another thermal power station has to be running in the background burning fuel ready to run at a moments notice. When the wind drops the back up power staion has to start instantly."

Again, I don't know how things work in the UK but that is not what happens where our wind turbines are. There are not power plants anywhere near our wind farm. When wind is low, nearby towns draw electricity from the national grid which is more costly due to long distances covered and losses along the way. When wind is up (which is very often), wind turbines supply towns and villages around them. There is no coal plant waiting nearby to kick in when the wind drops.

What you are saying sounds nuts to me but maybe that is how you do things on your little island