There they go again - those nasty people forcing them to admit the truth;
The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) has agreed to scale down its calculation for the amount of harmful carbon dioxide emission that can be eliminated by using wind turbines to generate electricity instead of burning fossil fuels such as coal or gas.The move is a serious setback for the advocates of wind power, as it will be regarded as a concession that twice as many wind turbines as previously calculated will be needed to provide the same degree of reduction in Britain's carbon emissions.
A wind farm industry source admitted: "It's not ideal for us. It's the result of pressure by the anti-wind farm lobby."
For several years the BWEA – which lobbies on behalf of wind power firms – claimed that electricity from wind turbines 'displaces' 860 grams of carbon dioxide emission for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated.
However it has now halved that figure to 430 grams, following discussions with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
The eco-crats don't subscribe to truth in advertising?
Wha??
Syncro
"the anti wind farm 'lobby'"
like we're so organized eh ?....as far as i can deduce the only critiques of their flawed reasoning is from private citizens ....could this possibly be another example of a straw man being created to further their nefarious Madoffian plotting ?...or am i president mckinley ?
They yiu ga again Kate.Letting fact get in the way of a good fearmongering scam.Can't to wait to hear the screaning and whining and ad homines out of the lftards in 3..2..
Surprise surprise !!??
If only they would read the blogs instead of newspapers. Would save the world a bundle. It's a fact - check sda archives.
It's not that sda is exceptionally smart - just reasonable, rational - non-Cool-Aide drinkers.
Well, not being happy when fact interferes with your political position seems to be pretty much universal. We certainly saw a complete disregard for fact from all sides in the whole "Coalition vs Prorogue" publicity war, including the media.
Wait,Ron in kelowna.I just had a thunk.Maybe they were including all that CO2 no longer produced by the dead bats and birds these blenders kill!
Wind power, like other forms of methods for harnessing energy, needs to be judiciously considered. Its 'vintage' technology can be made more efficient but it is not appropriate for all environmental settings. As in all things, moderation and good sense are the key to maximizing its potential.
"Well, not being happy when fact interferes with your political position seems to be pretty much universal."
Right you are,djb,Too dippers,leftards,sociliasts ,commies,facists,and just plain old scan artist
Inconvenient Truth's. Ironic no...
Is this vaporous "anti-wind farm lobby" perhaps a front group for the radical bird-lovers?
Ahh, the pernicious anti-wind farm lobby. /eyeroll
And we'll huff and we'll puff and we'll bloooowwww your windmill down.
The truth shall set you free!
And we'll huff and we'll puff and we'll bloooowwww your windmill down.
Hey, Joe....I got a gummament grant to build my house of straw.
Huff and puff elsewhere please!!!!!
As founder of the A-WFL , I will gladly accept this large commission from Algore Inc....... offsets rock !
I read somewhere that wind farms produce power about 30% of the time versus nuke plants' 90%. I don't see how you could make up a reliable grid with power that is that sporadic. Solar, of course, is available less than half the time even in the most cloud-free desert. These envirocrits are not very practical people, eh?
The "anti wind farm" lobby is strong with the Advertising Standards Authority.
Or could it possibly be that the standards folks for advertising in GB are actually interested in the facts being promoted instead of the pipe dreams?
Tim said it ... "An Inconvenient Irony"
"Or could it possibly be that the standards folks for advertising in GB are actually interested in the facts being promoted instead of the pipe dreams?
Posted by: AtlanticJim at December 26, 2008 10:31 PM "
Bwhahahahahahahaha....Santa must have visited you Jim,with a HUGE bottle of Screech.This just now gives the ad people a chance to push for more bogus "reasearch" ads into the hot-air scheme.At our expense.
I'll rephrase that . Whoever gets to sell the offsets just might have something to do with the A-WFL .
One thing that nobody seem to look into is intitial carbon dioxide load on atmosphere required to create wind turbine. If you count amount od steel and concrete required build wind turbine and amount of coal that has to be burned to produce that steel and concrete and amount of CO2 emitted it might turn out that it takes 20 years of operation of a wind turbine in order to save enough CO2 emissions to cover initial CO2 investment.
Let's hope that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) doesn't ever check out IPCC, gore, hansen, MSM, susucki etc ... it would make Madoff look like a victim.
"It's not ideal for us. It's the result of pressure by the anti-wind farm lobby."
... " Ideally we'd prefer to keep lying."
what I find most disturbing about this whole article is the continued fear-mongering fascination with CO2... "the amount of harmful carbon dioxide emission that can be eliminated" ... hahah harmful! So sad that phrases like this, so prevalent in the MSM, aren't edited out for the editorial-masquerading-as-journalism crap that they are.
I should give the benefit of the doubt, let's not forget there's an established consensus, the science is settled. Right?
Wind/Solar will never catch on without massive leaps in the technology such that you can actually make it a viable, cost effective alternative. I'd get off the grid if it was evenly remotely feasible to do so without dropping 20K into it. Sure it can pay itself off if I don't sell my house for the next 40 yrs. Without a better ROI, and vastly improved output per sq. ft. (ie. I don't have to cover my house in this crap), there's no valid scientific or economic reason that we should cease using the cheap, established technology to provide energy (ie. coal). I see no reason to go out of my way to go "green", especially when considering CO2 emissions don't actually matter, like any rational, logical, modern person should damn well know by now.
Still hoping the MSM will actually grow an ethical limb and start reporting more on the refuting of these dangerously stupid ideas. Now there's a pipe dream.
Let's hope that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) doesn't ever check out IPCC, gore, hansen, MSM, susucki etc ... it would make Madoff look like a victim.
Anti-wind lobby slogan:
"We will huff and we will puff until we blow the windfarms down".
Sorry, Joe at December 26, 2008 9:47 PM, either it was a subliminal copy or great minds think alike.
No problem RW as it has been often noted, "Great Minds Think Alike"; but then again, "Fools Seldom Differ".
C02 accounts for .04% of greenhouse gases. AGW accounts for 3% of that. The Oceans pretty much provide the rest. When the oceans warm, they release C02. When they cool, they absorb it.
Even still, only around 380 parts per million of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. This is nothing. Zero. Nada.
Why is this ridiculous, fraud still being foisted on the world?
Why are we allowing idiots to cover the land with expensive, rusty windmill eye and ear pollution on account of this fraud?
Germany has built thousands of acres of windmill farms, running at 18% efficiency on average. These things only start to make sense at 30% efficiency.
Al Gore, et al should be charged and convicted. Politicians who bring it up should be denounced and impeached. News media who promote it should lose all credibility and audience.
There are lots of reasons to think hard before making the big green leap. Here are some I came across recently. In winter:
Wind turbine blades ice up.
Cold makes biodiesel go sludgy.
Solar panels don't work well when the sun angle is low, it is cloudy, and when they are covered in snow.
I wonder if The ONE has a plan B.
'Anti-wind lobby',now you know that has to be made up of bad people. Who can be against the wind? These people have to be stopped before they join up with the anti-sunshine group and the pony deniers.
"Experts have previously calculated that to help achieve the Government's aim of saving around 200 million tons of CO2 emissions by 2020 - through generating 15 per cent of the country's electricity from wind power - would require 50,000 wind turbines.
But the new figure for carbon displacement means that twice as many turbines would now be needed to save the same amount of CO2 emissions."
So, what's the problem, build 100,000 wind turbines, and get 15% of your power needs satisfied with nice, clean power.
But, only 15%?! That's shockingly LOW!! Britain, if it is to maintain it's reputation as the Most Politically Correct Place On earth, MUST try for 50% power-by-windmill, by 2020!
That would mean building, um, lesse, math was never my best subject..., 700,000 more windmills.
Help me here, mathematicians.
Someday, all of Great Britain may be covered by windmills, what a tourist attraction that will be, better than Buckingham palace.
Posted by: Karol at 11:24 PM
I read an article on this BS in scotland, were 18m years had been established as the turn-around point, but they had forgotten to add in the methane released as they planted them in bog, thuly there was this opps moment were they now said 23 years. I would love to see the work up on these numbers as they are probable skewered in favour of the AGW truthers
Had a discussion with my nephew today (a geophysicist) ... thought it might be time to organize a Counter Activist Organization to fund the prosecution of legal suits against the frauds and con artists. A short list should include:
Suzuki and his Foundation
The World Wildlife Fund
Greenpeace
Gore and whatever entity he operates under
The IPCC
Take it from there.................
Dear Small Dead Retards,it seems like only yesterday i was warning you against an us economic collapse,only to be greeted by "were not waiting for the asteroid".Funny how that doesnt come up anymore?
I guess i could talk about peak oil and maybe make a small difference but why bother.
When the asteroid does hit,darwin will have been proven right,and the dumb,dumbs will be gone.
-yes that means most of you.
p.s-hows the portfolio doing?
Lucifer is that you or has morningstar stolen your moniker?