Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RcTjdY1aN4&feature=related Unless you wish to discuss our feathered aviators! …

Comment posted on Pilots concerned on wind farm generated air turbulence by Karl Hughes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RcTjdY1aN4&feature=related
Unless you wish to discuss our feathered aviators! and what happens when they are hit by a turbine blade…! warning this is pretty sad.

Karl Hughes also commented

  • Tim rewind:this was the catalyst
    Karl Hughes says:
    July 2, 2012 at 7:04 pm
    Agreed…but we also have to change in a sustainable manner…like you say, we are a small, in geographical terms, nation…and as such, we are far less able to absorb large physical changes (industrialisation) in the way we deploy instruments of change industrial wind power stations
    Local up is the obvious answer…not state down…and definately not state sponsored commercialism down. This methodology has a proven track record in some developing nation,,,for example, many of the rural areas of Western Africa…even her in Scotland…
    We can lead by example…but deployment of large scale industrial wind power stations is a plinian victory in the face of massive and ever increasing energy use and co2 release related to China, India and the US, etcetera…seriously, what do we gain except empty moral high ground, the destruction or damage of our own environment…for the sake of $$$$$$$$$$ in foreign pockets.

    Update:

    Is this so wrong ? We are leading the way in a reduced hydrocarbon use and thats admirable…and we can go back historically and say sorry we did not know an industrial revolution would kick off global warming and accelerated climate change…much the same as we can say sorry for slavery…it gives some close-out to historic events, but does not achieve anything if developing nations are not willing or unable to stop themselves doing the same

    …it’s cyclic driven by want rather than need.China and the US etc may not have been the big poluters in the past…but they are now, and they will be in the future…1.3billion Chinese are looking to have the same lifestyle as we have in the west…and why not…the big difference is they have already noted the cyclic elements of development = pollution

    ” between 1791 and 1831 the population of England and Wales grew at an unprecedented rate: from about 7.7 million to 13.2 million and it was to double again to around 25 million by the 1860s. The Scottish population grew much more slowly doubling from around 2 million to 4 million during the whole period from the 1780s to the 1860s.” now put this into the contex of growing industrialisation in for example: China… http://www.ehs.org.uk/industrialrevolution/PH_index.htm

    If the commercial giants of wind want to make a change…they should look further a field…and make a real change. Using Scotland as a Shop window is wrong for Scotland (and I refer in total only to commercial windustrial wind)

    China is already doing it’s own thing (state owned in entirety of course)…so why do folks feel we will lead the world by example…they already accept we messed up.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/19/china-windfarms-renewable-energy

  • Thanks Cpt Kirk, I rarely look at the site,…quite an insight and definately on par with the worst articles I have seen on such spoof websites…

    Off for a cuppa. “beam me up Scotty renewables”.

  • “Another place, another argument with a Scottish anti-wind activist who wants to know how much CO2, on a global percentage basis, will be removed from the atmosphere if Scotland meets her 2020 targets”…
    I simply can’t let this go…you are the author of spurious mis-information on your website. Now this can either be down to your inability to accept an individual does not agree with commercial wind, and is yet at the same time able quite easily to actively supports community wind; to the point where he was actively involved in building a turbine…(come to Tiree, it’s the large grey structure with 3 blades)…or a blatant lie brought about by your inability to tell the truth….
    On this basis alone you have no credibility as a useful or indeed honest source of objective information.
    If anything your website is totally counterproductive to the renewables cause.
    The article you have written then continues to be riddled with mis-information that the ill informed could be fooled into actually thinking is objective fact. Is this the way you expect to be able to change the current problems we find the world in Webcraft…who are your mentors ? it certainly is not the renewables industry, they show far more intellect in their arguments.
    In future and free of charge would you like to forward me such articles and I ensure you they will become objective/informative/ and above all truthful :) and indeed useful.
    Your are also lacking a total for your cumulative emissions what happened to the other 28+%…oh, don’t answer that…it’s too blatantly obvious !
    Take care
    karl

    (edit: Scots Renewables/webcraft subsequently removed inflamatory references.)

  • Thanks..saved me the trouble…note China V USA webcraft. QED
    Aye webcraft…”excellent data” for the case against industrialisation of our “least damaged most natural places” I would say…
    I suggest you print this out and place it above your laptop. Errr where is Scotlands co2 out-put…oh there it is… that misplaced pixel off out towards the Iceland !
    As for historic data…excuse me but there seems to be something at odds here…are we not trying to reverse current trends to gat back to pastures once green… Webcraft ? or is the entire renewables campaign and search for alternative power sources wrong in your books…f
    Anyhow there I go again wasting another nano-second..
    off to pastures new , Take 2
    Rgds
    Karl
  • When does picking a fight equate to asking for an answer from a supporter of industrial wind power ?
    “Scotland’s overall global contribution to CO2 reduction will be a very small number as a percentage. It will however be disproportionately large compared to her population.”

    Yes I agree, out of scale in comparison with both it’s land mass and population…the problem is even though we may meet our targets…the global CO2 emmissions still rise. As a further break down you might want to take other renewables out of the pot..and focus solely on wind…after all is this not what this discussion is about.

    In regards to China…please get your facts right…they are the fastest growing producers of CO2 and are expected to over take the USA’s emissions within a 10 year period. The USA will also continue to produce more CO2..(trends up in both cases)

    “I don’t intend to enter into a discussion with you about subsidies, except to say that most authorities agree that onshore wind will be competitive without subsidy by 2016. It seems strange to me that you and your fellow travellers want to scrap a new technology just before it becomes competitive.”

    It is not like industrial wind has just appeared ! go take a look at a time line. There we go…ZERO. and also you revert again to the economist spin of “competitive”…and have the gall to seperate onshore and offshore wind…they are the same industrial/commercial beast.

    Please do not tell un-truths, it does nothing for your credibility…. I have never mentioned scrapping a new technology “wind” (not that wind is that new eh :) ) I have always and always will support community wind/renewables ventures…I suggest you re-read all of my posts..and note that common thread.

    ZERO/ZERO.

    I will revisit the issue in 2016…I think you will find that this, if not before, will be the year in which the coffin nail will finally be driven home…

    Time to move on to a new issue.

    Slainte
    Karl

Recent comments by Karl Hughes

powered by SEO Super Comments