Tuesday, May 06, 2008

George Monbiot: disingenuous tit

The delightfully deranged George Monbiot is banging on about airships, or some such crap. You've got to love his opening paragraph though. [Emphasis mine.]
Of all the charges levelled against environmentalists, perhaps the most unfair is the accusation that we are opposed to technological change. Most of the greens I know are fascinated by gadgets (sometimes to the exclusion of better solutions), while some of the people we confront seem terrified by new technologies, and react to them—witness the campaigns against windfarms—with irrational hostility.

No, George, you moron; the reason that we are hostile to wind farms is because they don't fucking work. Being a fan of "gadgets" is all very well, George, but when said device actually needs to fulfill a particular function—like providing enough constant power to ensure that the lights stay on, for instance—and fails to do so, it becomes, not a gadget, but a "white elephant".

Windfarms, for instance, are a massive white elephant...

15 comments:

John Trenchard said...

george monbiot is a socialist tosser who will go down in history as one of the socialist tossers who tried to claw england back to the dark ages of communist rule.

they really HATE the berlin wall not existing anymore , dont they?

Anonymous said...

Airships are awesome.

All forms of dirigibles are awesome.

This isn't a green issue or a libertarian issue - it's an awesome issue.

One day, I hope to have a zeppelin of my own.

Jones said...

Airships are cool, but are no bloody good at all when the wind gets up. Monbiot is a fool who doesn't understand the limitations of the 'green' technologies he favours.

The only reliable 'clean' power generation technology is Hydro electric power. Wind and solar just can't cut it.

Old Holborn - bitter and twisted said...

I work in renewable energy. Wind Farms, Biofuels, Hydro, Solar

The EU can't throw enough money at this. I will be retired in 5 years tops.

Don't fight it, get a finger in the pie!

xoggoth said...

While everything in that article on wind turbines looks pretty convincing, the final conclusion that they need 90% back up power in the form of conventional power stations to provide a stable supply can surely be turned around to argue that provided we do not expect them to contribute more than 10% of our total needs they can make a contribution. Or am I missing something?

Mr Potarto said...

I think you're missing the fact that to guarantee production of 10% of our electrical needs, we'd need enough windmills sufficient to theoretically provide 100% of capacity.

Or the other way around, If we build windmills to provide 10% of capacity, we need fossil/nuclear to to provide 99% so as to take up the slack.

If you add that windmill electricity is much more expensive, and that you've still got the emissions of the backup power stations, they become pointless.

Mark Wadsworth said...

DK, the story you did about NSPCC, Action Aid and so on being EU funded is doing the rounds again, only this time, Dan Hannandoesn't mention your fine input.

Budgie said...

Contrary to Monbiot's twaddle, windmills are not new technology. Some minor development does take place because a lot of taxpayers money is thrown at them. But their main failing, widely acknowledged except by enviro-freaks, is that wind is intermittent and unreliable. This is not amenable to technical innovation.

We need Coal and Nuclear electricity stations for base load supplemented by Gas powered generation for peak loads. Some renewable systems, such as pumped storage, hydro electricity, tidal barrages and wave power should be used if cost effective (ie no taxpayer subsidy).

Henry Crun said...

Just what we need, another Hindenburg.

What Georgie Porgie seems to ignore about wind turbines is that when it gets too windy, they have to be turned off or the turbines burn out.

windy blow said...

There is one question the greenies will never answer: how long would it take one wind turbine monstrosity to generate enough energy to make another wind turbine monstrosity?

A year? Ten years? That's right... they don't know. Don't want to know, either.

But the greens always love wind farms because it is the embodiment of their socialism: all regimented and lined up, all whirring and spinning but no real end result. It might look as if something is being done, but it's just so much wasted energy.

Roger Thornhill said...

OH- I did not know it was possible to retire on 30 pieces of silver?

Rob said...

So, Monbiot thinks that if you oppose wind turbines because they don't work, you are insane. Turbineophobia, perhaps?

Thortung said...

This is what happens if the wind is too strong. The regulation mechanism failed on this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ

I believe I'm correct in saying that a wind turbine produces less energy during its design life than was expended in its production.

Roger Thornhill said...

Find the link thortung - the very thought of it delights the imagination...

"there are no rules in the (energy) arena..."

Chalcedon said...

Dirigibles equipped with big jets and luxury cabins. Liners of the air. Sedate travel across the Atlantic.

Chin chin. I say, waiter, top up my chota peg old boy!

But in the real world.............wind farms will never give us more than a few percent of our energy needs. They are an eyesore, noisey and dangerous. Until the fusion reactor is perfected we should go totally nuclear with fission reactors and junk these turbines. If the EU fines us.......refuse to pay of course! Just like the French did re British beef.