Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms National Grid Staus Lunchtime 1 March

I don't care about the comments..never read them.
But I do think that we should go forward with new technology in a full knowledge of the actual cost, both financial and environmental. Burying the real costs just adds fuel to those reactionaries who fight the search for a cleaner world.
Possesion of all the facts, good and bad, leads to genuine well thought through, open policies, rather than short term huge profits for a few at a hard cost to the poorer parts of our society (via energy taxes). For instance, why is it so hard for me to access the actual amount of energy being produced by my local windfarm?
The equivalent info for my local powerstation is readily available. Why are domestic tarrif feed ins "notional"?
Lets have (as a society) a real investigation into how we can go forward, that's what I'm promoting. The Californian waste should feed into our knowledge base, not be pushed under the carpet.
We should be addressing why the Californians have given up on it, shouldn't we?
Nick

Nick there's probably a story in the maintenance issues facing wind energy but it's probably only of interest to industry insiders. My issue was the poor writing and lack of attribution e.g. the author is quoting a source with which he is or was associated and whose report can only be obtained by subscribing therefore putting money in the authors own pocket.(I'm relying on an article by The Independent here) And the article implies that maintenance issues are an argument against wind energy. That's like arguing that petroleum refinery shut-downs for maintenance (turnarounds) are an argument against fossil fuels. It's just maintenance. And regarding obsolete wind farms, yes, as with the terribly scarred landscape after coal mining, regulators need to be thinking about what to do with those towers when they have waved goodbye.

I don't read it like that. The first paragraph is about jumping in too deep with a technology and paying a big price for it. It then leads to asking who will pay for it? It doesn't matter whether we call it routine maintenance or anything else, we are continually being told the costs are falling to realistic levels when no facts bear that out. Informed debate can't take place with such misleading propoganda. If the official line was ... It's going to cost ten times as much but tough, we've got to change......then fair enough, because that's true. It's the pretending it works economically that leads to suspicion and mistrust. That's how I see it anyway, I'm certainly not against change.