Wind farm impact study

“Sorry Dooyah, I meant Oldbury....an excited typo.”

“NeathPTboy
Sudbury?”

“Oh well, one thing for sure, the nuclear power industry won't need to carry out a study into the potential impact of nuclear energy on the Welsh economy, we all know that any sort of secure energy (unlike unreliable wind turbines) is an unbelievable advert for Wales, and will encourage far more businesses to the Welsh economy, STOP ERECTING USELESS WIND TURBINES NOW!!!!!
Stroll on Wylfa B and Sudbury, at last, the reality of the situation has been realised by a UK government.”

“I do not have a WebLog so, I don't blog anywhere.”

“"Dooyah'. Some of what I post is to flush out "greenie" treehuggers.
You are clearly not one, but trolls like "neathboy234', probably on the payroll of "Action4Renewables", never advertise themselves except by their lack of deep knowledge and their tendency is to stop knowledgeable debate.
You may find 'JoNova' or 'Bishophill' to your taste, if you do not already blog there.”

“Just quick note, if you find your accounts are being disabled on this site due to over sensitive or narcissistic admins, here is how you can register a new one in seconds and render them useless.

Google "tempoary email address" use those to re register a new account here in seconds.

I like to use gorilla mail, this site has banned the default @ SHARKLAZERS thanks to me, but select another one from the drop down list and use that.

Then use that as the address to re register here. Authenticate the email which is instant, You can use the same alias if you want, just add numbers at the end of so the admin knows its still you.

New account in less than a minute.”

“Norfolkian
A slight improvement on your post of Friday, October 26 2012, 6:36PM.
'He/she or it, "Dooyah" obviously green(ie) arrows him/her/itself as well.
We will flush out theses cheats because they lie so unconvincingly and we know their Augean pedigrees.'

Have you told the local farmers that all they need is CO2?
http://tinyurl.com/946ndly”

“"Dooyah", your point is agreed about the LCPD and the object being to eradicate, as far as possible, SO2 and nitrous oxides depending, of course, on how seriously you view them as deleterious emissions.
My main concern is that practitioners of the "greenie" tree-hugging art tend to misinterpret and think 'carbon dioxide' as they are unaware of SO2 and/or nitrous oxides as by-products of fossil fuel burning.
To make my position perfectly clear I regard carbon dioxide as the most natural fertiliser known to man and it is the chemical food of life so I do not wish to see the politicians panacea of CCS succeed except to the extend that it will enable the human to control more easily released CO2 into the atmosphere i.e. it is just another tool.
I think thee LCPD is a politician's bureaucratic directive to obliterate competition and open the path to obsolete renewables as is now seen throughout the EU and the UK, culminating in economic and environmental ruin.
Look at that Scottish idiot Salmonds take on wind and you have the same problem in Wales with the technical illiterates of the WAG.”

“Norfolkian
Your post: 'Bear in mind that CCS and the like are for carbon dioxide and not for SO2 or nitrous oxides capture, so how does your argument fit the facts of the EU directives?'
What argument?
I've pointed out, on numeous occasions, that the LCPD is about sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide.
I've pointed out that the LCPD has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
I've pointed out that the UK Govt decided that it was too costly to modify our existing coal fired generators and, as a result, our existing coal plants would be closed.

I've pointed out that the Near Zero Emissions Coal (NZEC) Initiative in China, that is part funded by the UK, hasn't progressed to phase 2 and nothing has been done since 2009.
I've pointed out that a similar carbon capture project in the USA has been ditched.

Why ask me to explain German Govt decisions?

btw: Smogs in London were common long before the 1950s. Charles Dickens mentions the 'London particular' in Bleak House.”

“"Dooyah", you may as well get the history lesson in full perspective.
There was a UK population increase across the UK after WW2 and the cheapest way to heat homes and drive industry [Think 'Midlands car, textile, metal, "you name it" industries] was using coal as the gas and electricity sector industries were not yet set up fully to distribute. British coal was cheap then but contains a higher level of sulphur than that now imported.
So yes, with the advent of lots of home fires burning, London and many OTHER areas suffered from Smog [combined smoke/sulphur dioxide and fog but the biggest problem was soot particulates which floated in the moisture-laden air]
Hence the Clean Air Acts of 1956 AND 1968, both to be repealed and superseded by the Clean Air Act 1993.
Don't also forget the contribution which cigarette smoking made to the death-toll of those people who got smog on their lungs.
Then learn about electro-static precipitators and Flue gas scrubbers, not new technologies in the 1950s/60s, but impractical to build into domestic situations. That is why some areas went in for local heating systems - it had advantages - Battersea for instance.
Bear in mind that CCS and the like are for carbon dioxide and not for SO2 or nitrous oxides capture, so how does your argument fit the facts of the EU directives?
And how do you explain away at least 17 NEW German soft coal power stations being built to substitute for zero carbon emissions nuclear [yes it is spelt 'emissions']?
Does that really comply with the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive? I would have deduced NOT.”