Comment posted Wind energy may be controversial but the logistics and the skills are mesmeric by Tim McIntyre.
Robert – I think you are correct that sea transport has been used for some time – someone I spoke to in Campbeltown told me the re-modelling of buildings and roads on the sea front was to eliminate the need for the long-loaders to have to execute multi-point turns to get round the existing buildings!
Tim McIntyre also commented
- …and you will note that I used the words “This will almost never happen” in relation to the output of the wind farm exactly matching local demand. The grid is needed to provide power balancing and control of voltage and frequency. Of course it is possible to do this in a standalone system – e.g. Eigg, but only sensible where the much higher cost of doing so is still cheaper than a grid connection.
- Malcolm – the point is that the tiny extra amount on your bill is your share of the cost of generating clean, green electricity – the fact that the community benefits is because they are fortunate to live close to a windy hill, and it is only natural for any community to capitalise on whatever natural resources they have to hand.
Amusing that you should refer to the Lottery which, when it first appeared, was described by someone as a ‘tax on the poor, the stupid and the hopelessly optimistic’ – is it really a fairer way to fund community projects than renewable energy?
Happy New Year by the way!
- Allt Dearg, along with the various other generating plants in the area, feeds into the 33kV network radiating out from the Port Anne grid supply point. If the output from those plants exactly matches demand in the local network, there will be zero power transfer at the busbars in Port Anne – i.e. the local plant is supplying local consumers.
This will almost never happen. Most of the time the generators will be producing a surplus, in which case the balance is exported to the wider grid at Port Anne, or a shortfall, in which case there is net import. Robert is correct – the grid is not like a giant loch with pipes feeding into and out of it – it is a network with nodes where power flows can be measured. This means that locally-produced power will always go firstly to satisfy local demand, and only the excess will be exported to the HV transmission system.
- Malcolm – in your post 31, you demonstrate that wind power is currently more expensive than the average of power generation costs from other sources. This is not in dispute generally, although it does not take into account the heavy taxpayer subsidies for nuclear which do not form part of the electricity price to consumers.
I was specifically referring to your earlier claim to Norma that Scottish consumers ‘alone’ were paying the entire subsidy cost of all wind power generated in Scotland – nonsense, for the reasons Doc explains. Also, you claimed that building the Tiree Array would result in a trebling of our electricity bills – also complete nonsense, for the same reason.
Then earlier still you claimed ‘for those not aware’ that the subsidy costs were in ADDITION to the higher overall cost of wind energy, which you have yourself disproved with your calculations.
- Malcolm – come on! ‘Hard facts’? – such as “Norma, we in Scotland alone pay £400 million pounds in subsidies to onshore wind farms.” and “If the offshore Tiree Array is built then our electricity bill will treble to £1500 per annum as we are pledged to pay 3 times the going rate over and above increased subsidies.”
Those are not hard facts – they aren’t even remotely factual! You have made them up on the spot, and now accuse others, who quote academic, government department and respected media sources, of only supplying information from those with their ‘nose in the trough’!
Recent comments by Tim McIntyre
- On nationalism
Malcolm – maybe you mis-read my comment. I said ‘developed’, not ‘developing’, though I’m not sure why you have lumped Los Angeles together with ‘murderous African dictatorships’?
I don’t object to private enterprise – I run one. Again you have mis-read my point. I (personally) think that there is a place for public ownership in the provision of some public services, and that it is one of the principles which underpins civil society.
“Your last paragraph condemns you” – do you mean if there is a ‘Yes’ vote, then I won’t be able to feel part of Britain any more, even though I’ll still be resident in the British Isles?
- On nationalism
Newsie, I happen to disagree with much of the content of your article, and so I posted my own views – isn’t that how it’s supposed to work? – without resorting to dismissing either you or your contributor as ‘arrogant’ or not ‘worthy of respect’ or lacking ‘independence of mind’. So by all means defend your arguments, but it’s a little rich of you to dismiss mine with such phrases, especially when you are so hair-trigger sensitive to the slightest hint of ‘bullying tactics’ from Yes supporters.
I daresay you may be right about the egg-thrower(s), but please don’t confuse a huge and entirely peaceful ‘Yes’ movement with a single incident involving a tiny handful of over-excited protestors confronting a shouty politician on a soap box.
I did not engage with the ‘Achilles heels of nationalism’ you describe because I have quite honestly not seen any significant elements of ‘chauvinism, utopianism and incipient racism’ in this campaign – the notion that these are defining aspects of ‘Yes’ is, to use your words, the ‘laugh of the campaign’. I’ve seen plenty of optimism, some of it no doubt misplaced, but not even the most ardent Indy supporters seriously imagine that an independent Scotland would be a land of milk & honey.
I’ve commented on here before, more than once, that a federal UK would have been a proposition I could have supported, so I agree with you there. Remind me again which political party is promoting that idea, and how much influence you expect them to have at Westminster in the forseeable future?
- On nationalism
I’m sure this rather rose-tinted expression of quintessential Britishness lies buried deep within the psyche of many people, including many ‘Yes’ supporters. Unfortunately the principles of political, economic and geographical solidarity which underpinned the feeling of a common British identity have been almost completely unwound by successive UK governments of both colours over the past 35 years or so.
The opening notion that “It enjoys a certain standard of living” is surely a joke? Isn’t the UK one of the most unequal of all developed nations in both wealth and income (and therefore ‘standard of living’) these days?
Then there’s the list of treasured public services, all of which have been, or are in the process of being, handed over from common ownership to the tender mercies of private enterprise.
The irony of this referendum is that for many Scots, a Yes vote is about trying to protect what is left of the values and institutions that many of us used to think of as being British, before they are finally and permanently dismantled and discarded by the UK state, for ideological reasons and the benefit of private equity.
Oh, and after a ‘Yes’ vote – we will all still be living in the British Isles. We will still share a cultural history, language, common travel area (No Borders!), monarchy and, if a small number of blinkered politicians come to their senses: currency. We don’t need to belong to a unitary state to share all these things and still regard ourselves as British.
- Thuggish Yes campaign benefits from media’s artificial ‘balance’ as Murphy forced to suspend campaign tour
Of course they won’t condemn it, JnrTick – it was just an ‘isolated incident’
Whereas the cowardly, heinous outrage perpetrated on the gentle, sensitive Jim Murphy can only possibly have been orchestrated through the evil cybernat web controlled by Aleggs Salmonella… etc. etc. etc.
- Cameron to address Scottish CBI as Tory MP quits for UKIP
Malcolm – ‘totally open in what he believes’… hmm, you mean like “A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde” ?
powered by SEO Super Comments