It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Power Supplier Admits Going Green Will Put the Lights Out in Britain

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
See Power Supplier Admits Going Green Will Put The Lights Out in Britain citing:


British families have been told the shocking truth about the price of green energy. They must prepare to go without electricity for extended periods, warns UK’s top electricity boss. Steve Holliday, National Grid’s chief executive issued a stark warning over the consequences of the UK ‘going green’ speaking to listeners to Radio 4’s Today program. The shock admission was immediately picked up in the Daily Telegraph (March 2, 2011) in the article, ‘Era of constant electricity at home is ending, says power chief.’ Britain’s largest energy supplier, National Grid is one of the most lucrative privatised monopolies in the world. It dealt the cold realities to a nation already committed to spending £18 billion per year on unnecessary and unpopular ‘green’ taxes. The colossal company is hell bent in pursuing an ill conceived agenda to make it’s energy policy more ‘environmentally friendly’ by focusing on wind power. When tackled about how the company was going to keep Britain’s lights on when the wind wasn’t blowing Mr. Holliday replied, “Families will have to get used to only using power when it was available, rather than constantly.”...“As a society, we all need to be clear about what we can and cannot afford” continued the fat cat enjoying a one million a year salary and a £1.27m bonus...Workers revolted over jobs being sent to India at the same time as annual profits hit £2,914million and senior executives were buying Ferraris and stabling them in a "hotel for fine automobiles” (Paul Routledge, Daily Mirror, 31/07/09)...John Droz. Jr, a committed environmentalist, added, “to me, one of the major unspoken (purposefully hidden) changes going on the modern world is a shift away from: supplying electricity on demand to having strict controls on users to conform to supply.” Thus users are expected to change their habits to conform to the variability (or unavailability) of wind energy...Britain’s Coalition Government, in it's own Annual Energy Statement for 2010 concedes that by the year 2020, nearly one third of the average domestic electricity bill will consist of green energy charges imposed by law.

But hey it is all good as long as the "coyote buffets" e.g. wind farms continue to be deployed. (The term "coyote buffet" comes from the constant knocking of birds out of the sky -- as they fall to the ground they become coyote chow. Of course this is a US term since I don't think they have coyotes in the UK.) The real reason they are so wild for deploying these rather than sensibly rebuilding their nuclear power capability like France does is this: the UK National Grid makes a profit in direct relation to how much capital they invest. They can upgrade their nuclear capabilities for about £5 billion, or they can invest £20 billion in zillions of wind towers and massive amounts of electric lines connecting them all. Hmmmm....which will get them more £££ in return? £5B or £20B capital invested? So the result will be an unreliable, variable amount of electricity. The serfs in the UK will be solidly returned to 3rd world status by 2020. Just the way the NWO aristocrats like it.




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SunSword
 


I also think this is a good way for the energy companies to steer people away from independant green energy. You know...the type that doesn't come from big business and cuts them out of the supply process.

Dependance must be ensured.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
in the U.S. it's almost impossible to start a new power plant (esp nuclear), and the Obama admin is throttling new drilling for oil, esp in the Gulf of Mexico. we have tons of oil in Alaska and off the Arctic, but our govt won't allow us to get it.
why? the liberal Democrat party is obsessed with global warming and ecology, and they are convinced that 'green energy'--solar, wind, etc--will supply the shortfall. they are apparently too stupid or too heartless to realize that we are YEARS away from the technology to produce 'green' power in quantity.
meanwhile the poor and middle class in the U.S. pay out the nose for energy that we could be producing ourselves.

only comfort is that in the far future when other fossil fuels are exhausted we'll still have some since they won't let us get it now!



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
That's total propagandist hogwash from those that control the fossil fuel energies.

If the renewable energy infrastructure is built (not this small patchwork that they have now, but the real thing), then there is more than enough energy.

It doesn't fit into the plans of world control via energy though. It's too easy for people with farms to begin outfitting some of their fields with solar cells, and earn some of that money. Therefor they continue to scaremonger the public regarding energy.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 
The article is addressing wind farms, not solar. Unlike the rent seeking boondoggle of wind farms, solar power can be economic and technologies continue to evolve -- for example look up the use of parabolic mirrors with Sterling engines; or mirror arrays with salt towers. However solar tech has drawbacks also -- doesn't work when the sun is down, doesn't work well in environments that are frequently overcast, and if using photovoltaic cells they produce a lot of pollution to manufacture. But even with those limitations, solar tech is far, far better than wind towers -- an insane boondoggle that lines the pockets of companies like GE.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Slight hole in that "article"..

Firstly, the National Grid do not generate any electricity. They are merely concerned with the transmission of power from the Power Stations to the local distribution networks over the HV Grid network (who then distribute to the home over lower voltage networks). They purchase power from a variety of operators based on cost and availability and plan for the varying needs of the nation wqeeks in advance so they can keep capacity up to demand. It's a fine balancing act.

The Grid does not invest any money into any power stations, thats done largely by private firms such as Centirca, Eon, EDF and the like with perhaps Government grants to get things moving. Based upon that glaring inaccuracy in the article, I find it hard to take anything else he says seriously.

As it happens,l the UK is investing alot of money in Wing, Tidal (we have some of the best spots for tidal energy in the world) and nuclear, as well as cleaner coal stations. We're not putting all our eggs in one basket as the artilce strongly hints at and is hinging it's entire premise on.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I believe that one day, our energy will come from our own homes, independent of big electricity companies. And that, is what scares them. (The big guys.)

But the way the world is going now, with all the hampering of the governments and the big companies, we'll probably never see it in our life times. Not before they realize that there's no other alternative but close up shop and lose billions upon billions of dollars.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Frontkjemper
 


The UK has just brought in something called a "feed in tarriff" which allows you to do just that, generate your own power and when your not using it, to pump it back into the Grid for someone else.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Facts:

Wind power is unreliable. Less than 30% of installed capacity usually and that is on a good day.

Any generation capacity from wind has to be backed up by conventional means, therefore there is actually no gain as the conventional plant is still required.

It is the most expensive form of electricity generation of all when everything is taken into account. When wind energy sets the price in the market the consumer pays through the nose for power.

It is not green energy at all. The amount of concrete and all the processes including the required 2 tons of rare earth magnets for each turbine negate any benefits.

There is no cost effective acceptable long term (2 to 3 days) storage facility for excess wind power.

It is unlikely that a wind farm will repay it's capital costs (without subsidy) before the turbines/blades need to be replaced. (Blades 15 years. Turbines about 20 years rough estimates)

Holland just dumped wind power saying it cannot afford the subsidies, and is going to build a nuke.

Tidal power is much more reliable but the technology is not yet proven.

Britain is at the back of the queue to get any new nuclear power stations as they sold the company that builds them to Japan and their order book is now full.

If you want to see what is being generated in the UK at any time go to this page.

Total wind capacity in GB 2332 MW. Peak generation today 312 MW. Forecast for tomorrow 512 MW FAIL!

edit on 5/3/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



Firstly, the National Grid do not generate any electricity. They are merely concerned with the transmission of power from the Power Stations to the local distribution networks over the HV Grid network (who then distribute to the home over lower voltage networks). They purchase power from a variety of operators based on cost and availability and plan for the varying needs of the nation wqeeks in advance so they can keep capacity up to demand. It's a fine balancing act.


You make it sound as if they are not in control. You are mistaken. Whilst the grid may not actually produce the electricity no one can produce electricity without their say so. You say they plan weeks in advance? Not so. Usually plans are based on 7 or 14 days max and the biggest spanner in the works is wind. Whilst there are system demand figures for a year in advance the actual demand forecast is not usually firm until 2 days in advance.


The Grid does not invest any money into any power stations, thats done largely by private firms such as Centirca, Eon, EDF and the like with perhaps Government grants to get things moving. Based upon that glaring inaccuracy in the article, I find it hard to take anything else he says seriously.


You are correct, however I believe you should take the article VERY seriously as this is exactly the route that the UK is going, and also in the US.


As it happens,l the UK is investing alot of money in Wing(sic), Tidal (we have some of the best spots for tidal energy in the world) and nuclear, as well as cleaner coal stations. We're not putting all our eggs in one basket as the artilce strongly hints at and is hinging it's entire premise on.


As I have already stated wind has to be backed by conventional so money invested in wind is not money well spent really. With the UK committed to removing it's dirtiest coal-fired plant by 2015 there is going to be a gap in energy supply and yes there will be rolling blackouts or as the article says DOMESTIC consumers will have to get used to power when it is available and not on demand.


The UK has just brought in something called a "feed in tarriff" which allows you to do just that, generate your own power and when your not using it, to pump it back into the Grid for someone else.


Only problem there is that when you are not using it most others in the domestic field are not requiring it. We have the same system here in Ireland and they pay 19c per kWHr. Seeing as I pay between 14c and 16c before VAT this does not seem a viable long term proposition.

I don't think this would last very long if there were greater numbers utilising the facility.

edit on 5/3/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by works4dhs
 



only comfort is that in the far future when other fossil fuels are exhausted we'll still have some since they won't let us get it now!


Now you have the REAL policy!



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
You make it sound as if they are not in control. You are mistaken.


I never made it sound like anything other than what I said and I think you'll find I know quite a bit more than I can let on. I work very closely with the Grid. I actually said they are responsible for the sourcing and distribution of the power, so surely it follows they are in control? Not sure how you came to the conclusion I said anything like you're implying.


Originally posted by PuterMan
Whilst the grid may not actually produce the electricity no one can produce electricity without their say so.


Not true. Generators must obtain their license from DECC, not the Grid.


Originally posted by PuterMan
You say they plan weeks in advance? Not so. Usually plans are based on 7 or 14 days max and the biggest spanner in the works is wind. Whilst there are system demand figures for a year in advance the actual demand forecast is not usually firm until 2 days in advance.


They do actually plan weeks in advance. Now, I never said how many weeks constituted "weeks", did I? 14 days is 2 weeks, but they do plan several weeks in advance when they know when certain sporting events are coming up, certain TV programmes etc, which cause unusual demands on power (half time in the World Cup games for example - all the kettles in the nation go on).

They also take into account long range weather forecasts from the Met Office. They do this planning because if generators need to go offline for maintainence, this takes weeks of planning to make sure we're not left with our pants down should demand spike. There are shorter term forecasts as well, but the planning of them is intensive.

I am at a loss why the "biggest spanner in the works is Wind", because right now very little is generated by Wind and even the future looks decidely "unwindy".


Originally posted by PuterMan
You are correct, however I believe you should take the article VERY seriously as this is exactly the route that the UK is going, and also in the US.


Very little of UK generating capacity is Wind. Any shortfalls in Wind can be made up quickly by using what is called the "spinning reserve", should the wind suddenly die off. Then there is STOR... We haven't got all our eggs in one basket and there are contingencies.


Originally posted by PuterMan
As I have already stated wind has to be backed by conventional so money invested in wind is not money well spent really. With the UK committed to removing it's dirtiest coal-fired plant by 2015 there is going to be a gap in energy supply and yes there will be rolling blackouts or as the article says DOMESTIC consumers will have to get used to power when it is available and not on demand.


We've all heard the media scare stories of rolling black outs etc, but they are untrue. There is more than enough capacity in the UK to cover and, if needs be, we have the France interconnect. Several new Nuclear stations will be built in the coming decade too.


Originally posted by PuterMan
Only problem there is that when you are not using it most others in the domestic field are not requiring it. We have the same system here in Ireland and they pay 19c per kWHr. Seeing as I pay between 14c and 16c before VAT this does not seem a viable long term proposition.


How so? If I am at work all day and my solar cells or what have you are at home generating away, then it stands to reason that there are others also at work, using power etc. If some one isn't at home using their power, then they will most likely be at work using power instead.

If the Grid gets energy from domestic supplies, then that precludes the need to get it from bigger generators, cutting the need for those coal-fired stations or wind farms to supply the power. Not following your logic here.
edit on 5/3/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Your statement was:


Firstly, the National Grid do not generate any electricity. They are merely concerned with the transmission of power from the Power Stations to the local distribution networks over the HV Grid network (who then distribute to the home over lower voltage networks).


Perhaps it was just the word merely. Try generating and distributing without the grid say so was my point. They do not merely distribute electricity they control who produces and when.


I think you'll find I know quite a bit more than I can let on.


Loved that one! Mm, there is a BIG conspiracy in electricity generation!


Do me a favour! I just spent that last 5 years programming the power station start-up curves - you know ramp up, dwell times, dwell triggers etc etc, calculating the estimated energy from wind power based on the Met forecasts, the feeds to the trading systems for bidding and looked after the stochastic systems for estimation of power requirements as far as 25 years into the future which included the planning of capital assets for the future so I think I might just know a little bit about what I am saying? I also spent a few years in the UK doing programming at Dounrey Nuclear power facility however that was admittedly only on nuclear power station outfall contamination.

Oh and add to that I programmed the databases for the planned maintenance and for the STMOs and which reorganised things in the event of a forced outage.

Now I will admit that this was for the All Island Market, but the model is identical and in any event it is but a hop away from becoming the All Islands Market, and you should know what I am talking about.


Not true. Generators must obtain their license from DECC, not the Grid.


Try getting one without Grid approval, but that not germane to the argument.


I am at a loss why the "biggest spanner in the works is Wind", because right now very little is generated by Wind and even the future looks decidely "unwindy".



Any shortfalls in Wind can be made up quickly by using what is called the "spinning reserve"


Indeed very little is generated by wind. In act in spite of the fact that (rough figures) 1/40th or 2.5%(?) of the installed GB capacity is wind power it only produces on average less than 1% (Last 24 hours 1.1% - that is a good day). Nevertheless the government is, like the Irish government, hell bend on ramming these ridiculous machines down our throats. If the future is looking "decidedly unwindy" as you put it then I am glad that maybe someone is seeing sense at long last. You can't see why this unreliability is a spanner in the works if, as for example the Irish government plans, wind power contribution is (laughably) intended to be 30%?

Just the very fact that one needs a spinning reserve makes the whole concept of wind power a total non starter. Anyway, back to the topic of Britain's future generation.

I find it somewhat curious in view of your assertions that the Grid/Gubbermint/Whaterever have everything in hand, that this page which should have planned capacity for up to the next 5 years has nothing, unless it is just my PC? I can't get any of those forecasts.

Allow me to quote from "The Real Global Warming Disaster" by Christopher Booker. ISBN 9781441110527


The one country most obviously put on the spot by the Commission's proposals was Britain. This was for two reasons. One was that she derived only 1.3% of her electricity from renewable sources, easily the lowest percentage of any nation in Europe apart from tiny Malta and Luxembourg. This meant that to meet the EU's target would require her to make a far more costly effort to expand renewable generation that any other country.

Worse still was the fact that, when the small print of the Commission's proposals was examined, the proportion of her electricity which Britain was now required to derive from renewable sources by 2020 was not 20% but 38%. This was because the overall target include other forms of energy which could not be derived from renewables. In other words the UK would have to increase the output from renewables by a staggering 3000%.


This has I understand been subsequently reduced to 32% - which is still not a remotely achievable figure. With 40% loss of capacity due to the shutting of the dirtier coal plants etc how ill the gap be closed?

You have not outlined how this gap is going to be made up in any way shape or form. You seem to think that solar power produced domestically will solve looming Britain's power crisis? Surely not!


If the Grid gets energy from domestic supplies, then that precludes the need to get it from bigger generators, cutting the need for those coal-fired stations or wind farms to supply the power. Not following your logic here.


Do you seriously consider that solar panels that only work in the daytime and are less efficient in the winter because of reduced light and shorter days, in other words do not work when the power is actually needed, are going to make up 40% of the power?

Have you even considered what will happen to this pipe dream if China does close it's borders to the export of the rare earth metals required to manufacture solar panels. New sources are being sought, but they will take time to develop. Have you considered that solar panels only become viable when subsidised? Like wind power they are pie in the sky as far as national generation is concerned. Very good for off grid living combined with small wind turbine and low head hydro systems and of course backup, but no - not as a national solution.

Add to this mix the fact that North Sea gas is running out and gas supplies for CCGT power stations have to come more and more from Russia. Ask yourself as we go towards a possible Dalton Minimum, or even a Maunder Minimum, who is going to get the gas when the demand in Russia is high?

I would be very interested for you to set out what you see as a workable plan to take Britain up to and beyond 2020 with full power supplies.

In light of the sale of Westinghouse and thus the loss of a UK based nuclear power builder I doubt it can be done, and even if plans were made to provide nuclear power immediately, what is the time span from drawing board to producing plant? Something like 8 to 10 years! Well that knackers the UK for 2020 even if they could start now then.

Yes, there are CCGT stations with planning consent, and wind farms with planning consent but at best I can only see around 9GW of the 18GW shortfall by 2015. That is a big hole!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Wind Farms are just as damaging to the environment as any other electricity generation/consumption.

First off are the large swaths of land that they take up. Second is the damage to the birds. But most importantly is the robbing of energy from the atmosphere. Imagine if we could harness all of the wind energy from any local area. What would be the overall repercussions? How would it change climate and weather? How would it affect your neighbors? How many people will suffer catastrophes over our harnessing of natural processes?

There is no such thing as "reneweable energy." All of that energy is part of some other natural process, and when we harness it, we create unintended consequences. It doesn't matter if it is Solar, Wind, Tidal, Wave Action, Geothermal, or Fossil Fuel.....all of them come with unintended consequences, and the more we harness, the more consequences we face.

The only solution is Energy Conservation. We can "borrow" some energy from each of the available sources, and we can limit our impact, but if our energy greed grows, we will eventually kill the natural processes of the planet, and we will eventually kill ourselves in the process.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
In the United States, there is enough unused Rooftop Space to create about 70% of our total energy consumption for the entire Country! This would not require environmental damaging HydroDams, or Acreage-eating windfarms, and it would have the added affect of effectively shading/cooling the rooftops and lowering energy consumption for cooling in the summertime.


Rooftop space is not a constraining factor for solar development. Residential and
commercial rooftop space in the U.S. could accommodate up to 710,000 MW of
solar electric power (if all rooftops were fully utilized, taking into account proper
orientation of buildings, shading from trees, HVAC equipment, and other solar
access factors). For comparison, total electricity-generating capacity in the U.S.
today is about 950,000 MW.

Source

LED lights are making a huge dent. Energy Star appliances are making a huge dent. Creative landscaping and utilization of "cool zones" and "buffer-areas" are helping to eliminate consumption. If people could change some of their habits, we could cut consumption by at least 20%! (I have proven this in my own home, just by changing out lightbulbs, and fiddling with the thermostat, I have lowered my kwh usage by about 20%!! I also used my fireplace more this year and cut my propane usage in HALF!

I am a fan of "green energy" but it is only one piece of the energy puzzle! We have to have a comprehensive plan, and we have to get the populace to buy into the comprehensive plan. We have to change construction techniques, and consumer habits.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I would love to use LED light bulbs but they are still a stupid price - about £30 per 60W equivalent bulb. Whilst they last 25 years and have enormous savings in power use I think they need to come down to 1/2 that and possibly also have a 100W equivalent version.

I won't use CFL bulbs unless I am forced to. I have one or two but only outside where the damage is limited if they break. They are not green and not environmentally friendly as far as I am concerned, and the light out put is rubbish. A standard fluorescent gives better light and does not take so long to warm up.

Only problem is that lighting use is a very small proportion of the power total so saving on lighting has little impact despite what the eco-greenier-warmists tell you.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I only have a few LED, I have mostly CFL for now. There are some good CFLs that are "instant on" and don't have to warm up. I also don't worry about them breaking, they contain very little mercury, and when I was a kid we broke thermometers on purpose to play with the mercury. It isn't dangerous unless ingested or inhaled. If a CFL breaks, just look away, don't breathe the dust, then clean it up with a damp cloth. No big deal.

You're absolutely correct about lighting only being a small energy hog though. Heating/Cooling, Hot Water Heater, Refrigerator, Dishwasher, and other major appliances are the major energy draws. It gets expensive to tackle everything, but modern materials and construction techniques can cut our heating and cooling in half!

Here are some examples.
#1. Everyone should be able to seal up all their air leaks. Making sure windows and doors shut tight, caulking around cracks. Insulating around outlets in the walls. Walking the perimeter of the house and sealing up holes, cracks, gaps, etc.
#2. If you must reroof a house, replace the decking with an aluminum lined decking plank. It will stop 97% of the solar heat from radiating into your home. If you can't find the precoated decking, you can put some down on your own before decking the roof. This stuff can also be strung from beam to beam in the attic to help keep the attic termperature down if you don't foresee ripping up the roof deck anytime soon.
#3 Good insulation, most utility companies now have grants to cover a large portion of blowing extra insulation into attics.
#4 Good windows. Modern double paned windows with good seals and good insulation work at least 3x better than older windows.
#5 Landscaping. Put a "Greenzone" around the home to provide a barrier against wind and sun. Also, if you live in a hot area, plant shade trees to shade the rooftops during summer.
#6 Hotwater heater, either turn it down several notches, or downsize it, or swap it out for a solar or hybrid version.
#7 Refrigerator, if it is more than 7-8 years old, it would probably pay for itself to replace. The Energy savings from a new EnergyStar refrigerator are usually enough to pay for the new appliance within 2 years. Also, be sure to get the smallest unit that will satisfy your needs, and keep it full of stuff. Dead Airspace reduces the load on the cooling unit when you open and close the doors. An empty refrigerator uses much more power than a full one.
#8 Heating and Cooling. Thermostat 78 in the summer (80 if you can stand it) and 68 in the winter. Also utilize Hot/Cold spots in the house instead of heating and cooling the whole house to your desired comfort level. Our heater never goes over 65, but we have a little space heater in the bedroom that runs at night. A small window A/C unit that runs a few hours each evening might be more efficient than turning the thermostat down for the whole house. Window treatments provide an extra layer of insulation for windows, especially South-facing windows.

The idea is to lower your consumption as much as possible over time, and then eventually switch to a greener energy source, such as solar or wind. At least that is my plan.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



#8 Heating and Cooling. Thermostat 78 in the summer (80 if you can stand it) and 68 in the winter.


?? I didn't understand that one. Why would you have it set higher in the summer than the winter?

What we have found is that since getting double glazing and replacement doors the fireplace no longer draws properly. There are two fireplaces and when only one is lit the smoke gets drawn back down the other as it is drawing air DOWN the other chimney to feed itself. We never had that problem when we had draughty doors and windows!

A bit of solar heating in the roof would be good, even in the summer!! I certainly would not want to prevent it, but then you lose heat in the winter if you don't. It is a very very very rare day that the house gets up to 72 F in the summer, normally the max around 66 F



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


#8 is straight from the utility companies suggestions. Basically they don't want you "over-cooling" your home in the summer. When it is 95 outside, 78 feels pretty good, most people don't need it to be 68. The same for winter, when it is 20 degrees outside, 68 feels plenty warm enough, you don't need it to be 80. Too many people set their thermostat on 72 and leave it year-round.

Personally, I turn my thermostat up to 80 during the day, and down to 71 at night. For the heat, I leave it at 65 all day and night and I use a little space heater in my bedroom for the wife.

I have heard of the 2 fireplace problem before myself. Usually damping the air flow with glass doors can correct it. There are even reports of fireplaces raising heating bills, because it heats the one room, but it draws in cold air to all the other rooms through the leaky doors and windows. In my case, I only have 1 fireplace, and I close off all the inside doors and let the fireplace just heat the main living room and kitchen. Then I run my space heater in the bedroom, set the thermostat on 65 and it rarely has to come on at all.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Wind Farms are just as damaging to the environment as any other electricity generation/consumption.

First off are the large swaths of land that they take up. Second is the damage to the birds. But most importantly is the robbing of energy from the atmosphere. Imagine if we could harness all of the wind energy from any local area. What would be the overall repercussions? How would it change climate and weather? How would it affect your neighbors? How many people will suffer catastrophes over our harnessing of natural processes?

There is no such thing as "reneweable energy." All of that energy is part of some other natural process, and when we harness it, we create unintended consequences. It doesn't matter if it is Solar, Wind, Tidal, Wave Action, Geothermal, or Fossil Fuel.....all of them come with unintended consequences, and the more we harness, the more consequences we face.

The only solution is Energy Conservation. We can "borrow" some energy from each of the available sources, and we can limit our impact, but if our energy greed grows, we will eventually kill the natural processes of the planet, and we will eventually kill ourselves in the process.



Well, the idea is to create a secure and reliable electrical power grid.
What the hell is reliable about generating power only when the wind blows?
Wind farms expensive, unreliable and they kill birds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The good news is i see a completely new power source arriving soon.







 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join