Post by Urban Warrior on May 21, 2006 6:53:33 GMT
According to popular scientific view global warming is a natural phenomena, a process that has occurred regularly throughout planet earth's history. The general consensus of opinion, however, is that our industrial habits, during the last decades, have accelerated the problem to almost critical levels. We have all played our part in this degradation; from the commuter who travels to work in the car and the shopper who purchases over packaged supplies to the giant corporations that pollute our atmosphere twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
No one is in any doubt about the scale of the dilemma we face, problems that could result in the complete destruction of global eco-systems, compelling us to change the way we perceive and use the world, whether we like it or not. Global warming has forced nations together in pursuit of a common goal, the protection of our planet for future generations. There are only two other scenarios that will cause political leaders to meet with this same urgency and vigour, trade and the threat of war. This is testament to the burden we all face.
The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Jeneiro was a land mark meeting between world leaders. For the first time Global warming, climate change, the 'greenhouse effect' and the hole in the ozone layer was seriously addressed. The Earth Summit raised awareness and produced agreements to cut down on harmful greenhouse gasses and to find alternative sources of clean energy as a replacement for the popular fossil fueled entities.
One alternative, that has proved more successful than most, is to harness the wind and turn it into the electricity we rely on to sustain our work and domestic life styles. An unfortunate downside is the fact that the ideal sites to capture this energy tend to be in areas where there are no natural or man-made wind breaks. This either means wind farms have to be sited off shore or on high ground. It is the latter, which has been met with widespread protest from people who reside within these upland regions. One can understand why the protesters do not want large tracts of hitherto for, unspoiled landscape hosting giant unsightly wind turbines. The other side of the argument, however, has equal standing, but to understand this one must study the issue in greater detail.
Our climate stands on a precipice, of that there is no doubt, and something has to be done. The 'greenhouse effect' refers to the fact the earth is surrounded by an atmosphere which means, to put it in simple terms, it acts like a garden greenhouse, allowing sunlight to radiate through whilst trapping the heat. Heat from the sun is absorbed by the earth and then re-radiates back toward space. At nightfall this heat would escape if it were not for heat absorbing molecules in the atmosphere, natural and man-made. The action of heat absorption and its continually redistribution back to planet is the mechanism that keeps the earth's surface at a livable temperature. It is, in effect, the key to sustain life.
Greenhouse gasses mainly consist of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and nitrous oxide. These are all normal, occurring substances. In the natural course of events a 'greenhouse effect' and global warming will happen, but far slower than it is happening now. When man-made compounds are added to the equation the natural 'greenhouse' blanket becomes too thick and therefore acceleration in global warming takes place. A good example of this is the planet Venus; here planetary heat climbs beyond any temperature capable of supporting human life.
It was during the 1800s that scientist first used the term 'greenhouse effect', then it had no negative association with our climate. It wasn't until the 1950s that the 'greenhouse effect' was linked to our industrial age's fossil fuel pollution and the blanket's thickening, causing what is commonly known as the 'enhanced greenhouse effect'. The natural greenhouse blanket is responsible for life as we know it, but the thickening of this nurturing covering could ultimately wipe it out.
Most world governments now understand this predicament and have agreed to set in place mechanisms to minimise global warming by cutting down and ultimately eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels, but this can't happen overnight. We are, for want of a better way of putting it, in our infancy where the solution to the problem is concerned. The available technology has to be offset with the financial capability to use it. The advocates of wind turbines see wind farms as the most affordable, workable method in our attempts to slow down global warming. I do not think for one minute they feel it is the ultimate solution, but merely view it as the best, most proven way to hopefully allow us breathing space whilst new technologies become available.
Whether one agrees with wind farms or not the fact is that something must happen if we are going to continue to live on this planet. We should ask ourselves what is more important, the sustainability of human life and the natural world or the protection of an upland site which, incidentally, will regenerate to some degree in time. We must realise also that even the most ardent environmentalist (I put myself in this category by the way) have all contributed to global warming in one way or another, none of us can claim to be blameless. Consider the following, small example. Even environment friendly products are manufactured in factories that require energy. Not only that, these goods are distributed by transport that relies on carbon forming fuels.
So then, looking at our global predicament, are wind farms a waste of time or do they represent our first real attempts to repair the damage we have done? They obviously do not represent an instant fix, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that, but they do allow a foundation of hope. If time permits, the use of wind turbines may give rise to a better understanding of the solution and this understanding could produce far more effective measures. We can all stand at the bottom of a local mountain shouting our distain toward giant turbines, but voicing an opinion alone will not solve this particular problem. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warned the world in 2005 that global warming was approaching the point of no return. He stated, "Climate change is for real. We have just a small window of opportunity and it is closing rather rapidly. There is not a moment to lose."
If the construction of wind farms on desolate landscapes is our initial attempt to grasp this precarious moment, then who are we to stand in its way? This just about wraps up the 'for' and 'against' wind farm articles. Please let write in with your opinions and comments. Are you for or against?
Wind Farm Facts thanks to www. wind4energy.co.uk (maybe out in a box-out).
· Further to the Kyoto and EU commitments, the UK, through its 'Climate Change Programme' (CCP), set a common domestic goal of a 20% cut in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2010. This is a voluntary increase on the mandatory target of 12.5% reduction.
· In February 2000, the UK Government announced its New & Renewable Energy Strategy with the publication of 'New and Renewable Energy: prospects for the 21st century: Conclusions in response to the Public Consultation'. The main thrust of the document proposed an obligation on all electricity suppliers to provide an increasing proportion of their supply from renewable sources, with 5% by 2003 and rising to 10% by 2010. Within this target the UK government anticipates onshore wind power to generate "2.6% of the UK's total electricity supply by 2010, or 3,250 MW". Currently about 2.8% of total electricity generated within the UK is sourced from renewable energy.
· A typical 20MW wind farm could produce in the region of 55,000 MWh of electricity annually, depending on turbine and site characteristics. Every unit of electricity produced by wind energy displaces a unit of electricity which would otherwise have been produced by a power station burning fossil fuel. Using the British Wind Energy Association emission figures for coal-fired plant it is estimated that such a wind farm could displace the following gaseous emissions which would otherwise have been produced by a power station burning fossil fuel: 45,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per annum, 525 tonnes of sulphur dioxide (SO2) per annum, 158 tonnes of nitrogen oxides (NOx) per annum;
· Over a typical 25-year project lifetime, carbon dioxide emission savings alone could amount to over 1,000,000 tonnes. Emissions associated with the manufacture and construction of wind turbines are relatively insignificant. Indeed, the average wind development in the UK will payback the energy used in its manufacture within 6 months of operation. Utilising updated figures of average UK household electricity consumption of 4,345kWh per annum, a typical 20MW wind farm would produce sufficient electricity to supply the average annual domestic electricity needs of approximately 12,500 homes.
· The construction of any wind farm represents a significant investment, often in relatively remote rural locations. The provision of site facilities, concrete foundations and access roads together with general civil engineering and technical services can benefit local companies, contractors and their employees. Experience indicates that about 30% of the total value of the wind farm contracts will be available for tender by local companies. This figure may rise as a turbine assembly and manufacturing based is established in Scotland and construction experience is gained. Additional indirect expenditure in local shops, service stations etc is also expected.
In terms of effects on tourism, actual experience to date in the UK shows that wind energy developments can have a positive effect, as the following examples indicate:
» At the Delabole Wind Farm in Cornwall, visitor numbers were between 25,000 to 30,000 in 2000, and are set to increase to 100,000, with the recent opening of the new Gaia centre for Renewable Energy Education at the site;
The "Swaffham Experience" in Norfolk (a viewing platform and Eco-Centre) received 25,000 visitors in its first year. The Centre for Alternative Technology near Machynlleth in North Wales, which has seen a doubling of visitors in the last three years; The presence of wind farms in the top beauty spots of Scotland made no difference to the enjoyment of most tourist holidays according to a poll conducted by MORI Scotland (2002).
Useful websites.
www.wind4energy.co.uk
The Centre for Alternative Technology www.cat.org.uk/
Friends of the Earth www.foe.co.uk/
By Andy Radford
No one is in any doubt about the scale of the dilemma we face, problems that could result in the complete destruction of global eco-systems, compelling us to change the way we perceive and use the world, whether we like it or not. Global warming has forced nations together in pursuit of a common goal, the protection of our planet for future generations. There are only two other scenarios that will cause political leaders to meet with this same urgency and vigour, trade and the threat of war. This is testament to the burden we all face.
The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Jeneiro was a land mark meeting between world leaders. For the first time Global warming, climate change, the 'greenhouse effect' and the hole in the ozone layer was seriously addressed. The Earth Summit raised awareness and produced agreements to cut down on harmful greenhouse gasses and to find alternative sources of clean energy as a replacement for the popular fossil fueled entities.
One alternative, that has proved more successful than most, is to harness the wind and turn it into the electricity we rely on to sustain our work and domestic life styles. An unfortunate downside is the fact that the ideal sites to capture this energy tend to be in areas where there are no natural or man-made wind breaks. This either means wind farms have to be sited off shore or on high ground. It is the latter, which has been met with widespread protest from people who reside within these upland regions. One can understand why the protesters do not want large tracts of hitherto for, unspoiled landscape hosting giant unsightly wind turbines. The other side of the argument, however, has equal standing, but to understand this one must study the issue in greater detail.
Our climate stands on a precipice, of that there is no doubt, and something has to be done. The 'greenhouse effect' refers to the fact the earth is surrounded by an atmosphere which means, to put it in simple terms, it acts like a garden greenhouse, allowing sunlight to radiate through whilst trapping the heat. Heat from the sun is absorbed by the earth and then re-radiates back toward space. At nightfall this heat would escape if it were not for heat absorbing molecules in the atmosphere, natural and man-made. The action of heat absorption and its continually redistribution back to planet is the mechanism that keeps the earth's surface at a livable temperature. It is, in effect, the key to sustain life.
Greenhouse gasses mainly consist of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and nitrous oxide. These are all normal, occurring substances. In the natural course of events a 'greenhouse effect' and global warming will happen, but far slower than it is happening now. When man-made compounds are added to the equation the natural 'greenhouse' blanket becomes too thick and therefore acceleration in global warming takes place. A good example of this is the planet Venus; here planetary heat climbs beyond any temperature capable of supporting human life.
It was during the 1800s that scientist first used the term 'greenhouse effect', then it had no negative association with our climate. It wasn't until the 1950s that the 'greenhouse effect' was linked to our industrial age's fossil fuel pollution and the blanket's thickening, causing what is commonly known as the 'enhanced greenhouse effect'. The natural greenhouse blanket is responsible for life as we know it, but the thickening of this nurturing covering could ultimately wipe it out.
Most world governments now understand this predicament and have agreed to set in place mechanisms to minimise global warming by cutting down and ultimately eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels, but this can't happen overnight. We are, for want of a better way of putting it, in our infancy where the solution to the problem is concerned. The available technology has to be offset with the financial capability to use it. The advocates of wind turbines see wind farms as the most affordable, workable method in our attempts to slow down global warming. I do not think for one minute they feel it is the ultimate solution, but merely view it as the best, most proven way to hopefully allow us breathing space whilst new technologies become available.
Whether one agrees with wind farms or not the fact is that something must happen if we are going to continue to live on this planet. We should ask ourselves what is more important, the sustainability of human life and the natural world or the protection of an upland site which, incidentally, will regenerate to some degree in time. We must realise also that even the most ardent environmentalist (I put myself in this category by the way) have all contributed to global warming in one way or another, none of us can claim to be blameless. Consider the following, small example. Even environment friendly products are manufactured in factories that require energy. Not only that, these goods are distributed by transport that relies on carbon forming fuels.
So then, looking at our global predicament, are wind farms a waste of time or do they represent our first real attempts to repair the damage we have done? They obviously do not represent an instant fix, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that, but they do allow a foundation of hope. If time permits, the use of wind turbines may give rise to a better understanding of the solution and this understanding could produce far more effective measures. We can all stand at the bottom of a local mountain shouting our distain toward giant turbines, but voicing an opinion alone will not solve this particular problem. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warned the world in 2005 that global warming was approaching the point of no return. He stated, "Climate change is for real. We have just a small window of opportunity and it is closing rather rapidly. There is not a moment to lose."
If the construction of wind farms on desolate landscapes is our initial attempt to grasp this precarious moment, then who are we to stand in its way? This just about wraps up the 'for' and 'against' wind farm articles. Please let write in with your opinions and comments. Are you for or against?
Wind Farm Facts thanks to www. wind4energy.co.uk (maybe out in a box-out).
· Further to the Kyoto and EU commitments, the UK, through its 'Climate Change Programme' (CCP), set a common domestic goal of a 20% cut in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2010. This is a voluntary increase on the mandatory target of 12.5% reduction.
· In February 2000, the UK Government announced its New & Renewable Energy Strategy with the publication of 'New and Renewable Energy: prospects for the 21st century: Conclusions in response to the Public Consultation'. The main thrust of the document proposed an obligation on all electricity suppliers to provide an increasing proportion of their supply from renewable sources, with 5% by 2003 and rising to 10% by 2010. Within this target the UK government anticipates onshore wind power to generate "2.6% of the UK's total electricity supply by 2010, or 3,250 MW". Currently about 2.8% of total electricity generated within the UK is sourced from renewable energy.
· A typical 20MW wind farm could produce in the region of 55,000 MWh of electricity annually, depending on turbine and site characteristics. Every unit of electricity produced by wind energy displaces a unit of electricity which would otherwise have been produced by a power station burning fossil fuel. Using the British Wind Energy Association emission figures for coal-fired plant it is estimated that such a wind farm could displace the following gaseous emissions which would otherwise have been produced by a power station burning fossil fuel: 45,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per annum, 525 tonnes of sulphur dioxide (SO2) per annum, 158 tonnes of nitrogen oxides (NOx) per annum;
· Over a typical 25-year project lifetime, carbon dioxide emission savings alone could amount to over 1,000,000 tonnes. Emissions associated with the manufacture and construction of wind turbines are relatively insignificant. Indeed, the average wind development in the UK will payback the energy used in its manufacture within 6 months of operation. Utilising updated figures of average UK household electricity consumption of 4,345kWh per annum, a typical 20MW wind farm would produce sufficient electricity to supply the average annual domestic electricity needs of approximately 12,500 homes.
· The construction of any wind farm represents a significant investment, often in relatively remote rural locations. The provision of site facilities, concrete foundations and access roads together with general civil engineering and technical services can benefit local companies, contractors and their employees. Experience indicates that about 30% of the total value of the wind farm contracts will be available for tender by local companies. This figure may rise as a turbine assembly and manufacturing based is established in Scotland and construction experience is gained. Additional indirect expenditure in local shops, service stations etc is also expected.
In terms of effects on tourism, actual experience to date in the UK shows that wind energy developments can have a positive effect, as the following examples indicate:
» At the Delabole Wind Farm in Cornwall, visitor numbers were between 25,000 to 30,000 in 2000, and are set to increase to 100,000, with the recent opening of the new Gaia centre for Renewable Energy Education at the site;
The "Swaffham Experience" in Norfolk (a viewing platform and Eco-Centre) received 25,000 visitors in its first year. The Centre for Alternative Technology near Machynlleth in North Wales, which has seen a doubling of visitors in the last three years; The presence of wind farms in the top beauty spots of Scotland made no difference to the enjoyment of most tourist holidays according to a poll conducted by MORI Scotland (2002).
Useful websites.
www.wind4energy.co.uk
The Centre for Alternative Technology www.cat.org.uk/
Friends of the Earth www.foe.co.uk/
By Andy Radford
