An intriguing little story of apparent co-operation over wind power technology and potential radar interference.
Although it does not mention it in this story, it's also worth bearing in mind another announcement made recently regarding the MoD's contractor, which has said that it will be working with wind turbine developers and providing assistance in the form of information on the use and adoption of stealth technology in the manufacture of wind turbines, with the goal of reducing their radar cross-sectional area and signal. In other words, you can build a big big wind turbine in the path of airport radar, but it will be 'invisible'.
Energy firm ScottishPower Renewables (SPR) has signed agreements with several wind farm developers in central Scotland to help them tackle air traffic control issues.
The deals give the developers access to data from SPR's custom-built radar station in Kincardine.
SPR said the agreements could help address "potential radar concerns".
It added wind farm developers could use the data to help with planning applications.
The energy firm's radar station data provides a second point of reference for air traffic controllers to check that airspace is free from potential turbine interference.
The radar station was built by SPR in 2006 to meet concerns raised by Glasgow Airport and National Air Traffic Services (Nats) when the energy firm was seeking planning permission to build Whitelee wind farm near Eaglesham.
Agreements reached so far include wind farms at: Harelaw (Gamesa) Climpy (Muirhall Energy) Two West Coast Energy projects, including Blantyre Muir Wind Farm near East Kilbride Middleton (agreement originally reached with RWE NPower Renewables - project now owned by SPR)
I notice this story about wind power, and I'm not sure if the idea is to present some sort of surprise, or to suggest this is something the ant-wind brigade might add to its armoury of moans.
It doesn't really reach any sort of conclusion in any particular way.
But I'm sure those of membership who have had any training in systems will not be surprised.
After all, once you are aware of the concept that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (merely moved) it's fairly obvious that dropping a wind farm that draws a few megawatts out of the atmosphere is going to affect the weather, since it is driven by the energy it contains.
What's not so obvious, of course, is whether or not that change will or will not be significant, and if the surrounding atmosphere (which, it has to be noted is fairly BIG) will just sink some more in, or if this happens so slowly that there is an observable local weather effect.
Now we know there is an effect, by confirmation, but I suppose we will have to wait and see if arguments follow about how significant it is. Could nearby farm production be wrecked by weather variations?
There was a case some years back, when wind power was being firmly grasped on the Continent, when one electricity company claimed a competitor had built a new wind farm too close to its existing one, and was 'stealing' the wind/energy before it got to them.
Afraid that all I know. I was told the story, but not the outcome - it might still be going on in court for all I know
Megalomaniac would-be dictator of Scotland Donald Trump has been given yet another poke in the eye with sharp stick by the developers of a wind farm that can be seen from his Aberdeen golf course - with something like the Hubble.
The developers behind a controversial wind farm to be built off the coast of Donald Trump’s £100m golf course have offered a deal to the Ministry of Defence in a bid to get the proposal the go-ahead.
If approved, the £230m European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC) proposal would see 11 turbines built one-and-a-half miles off the coast of Aberdeen.
The plans have angered US tycoon Donald Trump as well as the MoD and the National Air Traffic Service who have raised concerns that the turbines will affect aircraft radar systems.
However the developers Vattenfall, Technip and Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group have said that they would help provide a solution for tackling any interference.
Iain Todd, spokesman for the EOWDC project, said: “There is an advanced technological solution and we are confident that it will satisfy the MoD and Nats."
Mr Trump has said that if the Scottish Government approves the plans he will launch a bid to delay it in the courts, claiming his legal challenge will be “my great gift to Scotland”.
He told the Press and Journal: “We have studied this issue in great detail and the objection from the Ministry of Defence is insurmountable.
“There is nothing that can mitigate the impact these hideous windmills will have.
“The defence of the United Kingdom is far too important to tinker with, just to satisfy Alex Salmond’s ego.”
While I doubt the MoD (or an amoeba) would consider advice from Donald Trump to much use for anything, except maybe writing on toiler paper to make it look interesting before it used, I suspect they will be listening to people who actually have some sort of vague qualification in the subject - and I doubt The Trump has ever studied radar, or anything else for that matter.
He cannot even speak sense.
If you have never looked at the recording of his 'performance' when he was allowed to speak at a panel on wind power a few months ago - then it's worth hunting down in the BBC's archives.
It's provided in full, but you will probably turn it off anf give in after about 20 minutes, as your brain cries "Enough! This is just insulting,"
The unfortunate panel members were obliged to sit through the whole session - and the chairman was obliged to remain professional and polite throughout - but if he had a dog, it probably ran out the door when it heard him arrive home that night
Because I recently spent a fair bit of time reading all the stories about renewables (and have historically looked at the development of other industries), the following story 'clicked' and made me wonder why it would appear that no other industrial development appears to have attracted anything like the stories (and let's be frank - downright fantasies) presented by greenies as regards the effects of wind turbines and wind farms on birds.
If you are not biased, have a look around the web, and you'll find many adverse claims regarding wind turbines and birds - but if you try and research them, then you'll find that many of them turn out to be false claims, and turn out to be repetitions of myths - and often using such repetition to back up their own 'validity'.
It looks as if YouTube has helped this along, and many of the cases of 'horrendous numbers of bird strikes' are backed up by only a handful of videos of such events as single happening, not massacres of flocks as the writers often suggest.
We're back to my old 'global warming gripe of being classified as disbeliever because I am a sceptic, and do not accept this as a given fact, but I am sceptical, and that means I want to be presented with evidence, not dogma.
There are few apparently 'good' reports, such as the one I link below, but I suggest the jury stay out as regards a general damnation of wind turbines, based on dogma and the writing of those committed to being against them:
(For what it's worth, I class this as 'good' report because it's not a generalised non-specific attack on all turbines, but identifies a specific hazard and type of turbine in an identified situation. This means the results can be used positively - not just by green loonies that want chain saws taken to them all.)
Self-appointed First Minister and leader of his fiefdom of Scotland, Donald Trump, has apparently issued another decree regarding wind power, and issued a decree against proposals to build an offshore wind farm in the Moray Firth.
Unconfirmed rumour-mongers have suggested he became apoplectic at the thought of this installation interfering with his plans to grass over the firth, and create the world's largest offshore golf course.
The plan is to create the largest offshore wind farm in the world (but only to date) with up to 339 turbines, of up to 670 ft in height:
The wind farm would cover about 114sq miles and could produce up to 1,500MW of power – about the same as a conventional power station.
The power would be collected by up to eight offshore electrical platforms, before being sent ashore by a cable under the seabed to Fraserburgh. From there, developers hope to transmit the power to Peterhead power station through an underground cable, though that would require permission from the local council.
The project would lie some 13 miles off Caithess, and cost around £4.5 billion, and the article indicates that the wind farm would cover about 114 square miles and could produce up to 1,500 MW of power, which it says is about the same as a conventional power station. The supply is said to be sufficient for 800,000 to 1 million homes.
As I have noted during the period when I was following developments more closely a little while ago, the proposal has immediately drawn all the usual cranks out of the woodwork, with predictions of 'blight on the landscape', piles of dead birds. and now stack of dead dolphins and whales added to the heap.
In the day after the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published a statement detailing how wind power can be managed, the anti-wind farm mob were already whining about wind power not being reliable or producing any power when it was needed, or if the wind was not blowing. It also noted that there was a minimum cut of 10% in subsidies (which are anticipated to more like 25%), but this does not seem to have had any effect on the anti-brigade, which is still trotting out the same claims that the farms are only being built so the developers can pocket the subsidy cash, and then run away as soon as the farm is built.
They're also rolling out the 'tourism-killer' card as well.
I have to say that on balance, and I don't ignore the plain and simple fact that a lot of mistakes were made in the early days (and that's just as true of the great Victorian engineering era), but which lessons were learned from, the anti-brigade is beginning to sound more and more like a broken record, trotting out the same objection today as it was in the days when wind farms probably were guilty of many sins, and even ignorance due to lack of experience.
But then again, with an oaf, and an ignorant and wealthy oaf like Donald Trump at their helm, do they have any credibility anyway, even before asking them for proper proof of their claims?
Today, proper objectors are needed to keep projects like this in check - not cranks that merely keep spouting outdated rhetoric and decades old dogma - they need to have a clearout and get their house in order, so that the proper questions can be raised.
Egoist Donald Trump and his tame anti-wind campaign group CATS (Communities Against Turbines Scotland) got a nice slap down today, from the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority).
While they can generally get away with spreading lies and mis-truths about wind power, using information out of context, or just plain making stuff up, they made the mistake of trying the same tactics in prints after they placed adverts in newspapers showing old rusting wind turbines, and saying this could be Scotland - the turbines are long abandoned first generation hardware discarded in Hawaii.
The ASA was not amused after receiving complaints about the material and its implied representation of Scotland.
Trump has been told the ads must not appear in the same form again, and the complaints were upheld.
The Trump organisation response seems to suggest that wind turbines are responsible for anything untoward that happens if there is one in sight of anything undesirable that happens anywhere.
There is something wrong inside the heads of these people. Wind turbines may not be perfect, but no-one claims they are, however the Trump claims are just become absurd as they try harder to turn Scotland against them.
Donald Trump plays some of the 'dirtiest' pool around, and there seems to be little he - or his organisation - will not lie about, bend the rules of, or just do as they please, in order to get what they want regardless of the wishes of those who have been unwittingly trusting enough to allow him anywhere into their communities, either by choice, or merely as a result of being in such a community.
See how he describes having gorse planted as merely "Restoring it" after other works, when in reality it has been carefully planted in order to block local access along paths where does not want scruffy locals to get too close to his elite golf course.
Donald Trump has been accused of trying to keep dog walkers away from his multi-million pound golf course by planting gorse bushes on public paths.
The tycoon has already built trees around residents' houses to keep them out of sight from his £100m Balmedie course in Aberdeenshire and the billionaire has caused anger after taking his seclusion plans a step further by planting the bushes on the public side of his fence, blocking public access.
Hilary Nicoll, 46, from Alford, Aberdeenshire, was one of the first to discover the thorny shrubs.
She said: "The bushes are only about a mile and a half away from the start of Balmedie Country Park which is very popular with dog walkers, joggers and people generally just having fun.
"All of a sudden we started coming across more and more gorse bushes in the middle of paths. I believe it's petty. I'm not a fan of Mr Trump and his tactics are a bit underhand.”
The bushes have been planted on the east side of the golf course near the dividing fence which separates the course with the rest of the land.
Debra Storr, a former councillor who lives in Balmedie, added: "The Trump Organisation is not supposed to be doing anything at that site anymore, as it was just the original plans that were accepted by the council.
"But Aberdeenshire Council don't seem to be able to stop Mr Trump.
"He has always taken the position that he doesn't want people on his land, which is completely against the ethos of the Scottish people and indeed, golf courses.
A campaigning group that showed Scotland's picturesque landscape blighted by rusty, broken wind turbines has been criticised by the advertising watchdog for using images from Hawaii.
Communities Against Turbines in Scotland ran a regional press ad campaign with a banner headline, "Welcome to Scotland", and a photograph of broken and rusty wind turbines.
Alex Salmond, the first minister of Scotland, was also criticised in the campaign for wanting to build "8,750 of these monstrosities".
Scottish Renewabless, which represents the renewable energy industry in Scotland, complained to the Advertising Standards Authority that the ad was misleading and inaccurate.
The anti-wind turbine campaigning body, which is known by the acronym Trump, admitted that the photograph was not of Scotland but was "illustrative" of what could happen of the government took its renewable energy policy forward.
An image was used of a wind farm in Hawaii that had been built in 1987 and had been decommissioned in 2006. The model of turbine was so old there was not any chance that it could ever be used in Scotland.
In addition the ASA said that the Scottish government's policy document stated that by 2020 there might be a maximum of 5,645 onshore and offshore turbines – well below the campaigning group's advertising claim of 8,750.
The ASA banned the ad campaign and told the campaigning group not to exaggerate claims in future ads.
The "Madness of The King" (Donald Trump) seems to be infecting his new best friends, CATS (Communities Against Turbines Scotland).
In light of the announcement a few days ago that OFGEM was imposing very high tariffs for connecting Scottish offshore power to the grid, it should come as no surprise to hear that the Scottish Government is going to increase subsidies for deep offshore installations - under the suggestions that an increased subsidy is needed to take account of the increased costs associated with such installations. It's also not much of a surprise when one also considers that subsidies across the board have been cut - in part due to reduced costs as the technology matures and production costs continue to fall for renewables.
What's harder to understand is CATS' logic, which sees the announcement as one that heralds bleak times ahead for offshore power, and wind in particular (which probably uses the turbines that CATS so dislikes):
Linda Holt, spokeswoman for Communities Against Turbines Scotland, said: "Today's news shows the Scottish government is deeply worried about the prospects for offshore wind in particular.
"Its ability to reassure renewable energy companies about the financial risks is severely limited because, ultimately, it will be consumers across the UK who will have to pick up the bill."
Now all the mountaineers are clubbing together to oppose wind farms:
Two organisations that represent walkers and climbers have united in a campaign to oppose wind farms being built in mountain areas.
The British Mountaineering Council (BMC) is backing a Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS) manifesto on the renewable energy developments.
It calls for a suspension on further wind farm projects in what they call "key upland areas".
These include sites on and near Munros and Corbetts.
Munros are mountains of more than 3,000ft.
There are now 282 peaks of that size after new measurements of Beinn a'Chlaidheimh, near Ullapool, demoted it to Corbett status. The measurement has been recognised by the Scottish Mountaineering Club.
Corbetts are 221 hills of 2,500ft (762m) to 3,000ft (914.4m).
The BMC has 75,000 members and represents mountaineers and hill walkers across England and Wales. The MCofS has 11,400 members.
MCofS chief officer David Gibson said the organisations were not opposed to wind power, but did not want turbines constructed in what they consider to be sensitive areas.
So we can have wind turbines, so long as mountaineers and hill walkers think they're in the right place.
I already have a generator in readiness for when the lights go out.
It was bought after earlier troubles, but never need, however I am beginning to think it's time to plan a hidden fuel tank for it now, to get around the law on fuel storage in domestic premises, ie a home. I can always sneak 40-50 gallons in my cars, as long as I keep then full.
The criteria is getting a bit silly now, as we have ruled out so many forms of energy in this country, and have groups organising to oppose installation of most renewables.
It looks as if the plain brown envelopes (or even parcels) are no longer being handed out, or people have just realised the amount of utter tosh which the Trump organisation, and Donald Trump himself vomits, with regard to the lies and disinformation (not to mention the 'bully-boy" tactics exercised on locals) they have tried to spread for months.
In what seem a rather sudden announcement - apart from a few outpourings of drivel from the Trump side - there has been little in the news at least, and no hints about anyone dropping objections.
Maybe he did indeed overdo his mad objections, and everyone else is becoming embarrassed, or afraid, of becoming associated with his delusions:
Several organisations have dropped opposition to plans for an 11 turbine wind farm off Donald Trump's Aberdeenshire golf course.
The £230m project is a joint venture by utility company Vattenfall, engineering firm Technip and Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group (Areg).
The Ministry of Defence (MoD), National Air Traffic Services (Nats), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and RSPB Scotland have agreed conditions.
Mr Trump's course is at Menie.
European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC) spokesman Iain Todd said: "The removal of a number of objections is another significant step forward for the scheme.
"The EOWDC partners hope for a green light on its consent application from the Scottish government later this year."
More verbal diarrhoea pours forth from hole that passes from a mouth in Donald Trump's head...
At least he does not try and cover up the real reason for his spite is his golf club, and not concern over birds - which he merely hijacks along with the RSPB for his cause:
Donald Trump has launched another attack on plans for a wind farm off the coast of his Aberdeenshire golf course. He'll clearly use anything and anybody to get his way, regardless of any consideration for them.
The £230m project is a joint venture by Vattenfall, Technip and Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group (Areg).
Several organisations, such as Scottish Natural Heritage and RSPB Scotland, have dropped opposition.
Mr Trump said: "Their name should be changed to RSKB - Royal Society for the Killing of Birds, to reflect their pro-wind turbine position."
The US billionaire claims the turbines would spoil the sea views for golfers on his course at Menie.
Donald Trump really is no better than the dirt you might scrape off the sole of your shoe if not paying attention while out walking.
Now he has even drawn on the Lockerbie disaster in order to insult Alex Salmond:
Donald Trump has launched an attack on Alex Salmond over his role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber as the row over a wind farm near his new golf course continues.
The US tycoon has called on the head of the MoD to resign and renamed the RSPB the "Royal Society for the Killing of Birds" in a statement released on Friday.
Referring to the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi who was freed from Scottish jail in 2009 on compassionate grounds, Mr Trump said Mr Salmond’s “greatest contribution has been to let a Libyan terrorist go home to his friends after bombing Pan Am flight 103”.
I don't know about honest egg thieves, but they should use the convenience charge of a Breach of the Peace to make up a case against Donald Trump (he is causing distress to Alex Salmond, and those around him, that should be enough justification if photographers doing nothing wrong on the public road can be lifted using this excuse), and then issue an ASBO banning him from entering Scotland for the rest of his life.
Or maybe they could resurrect the old term of "Undesirable Alien" and just refuse him entry flat out if he ever shows up at Customs when trying to enter the country.
Noted an interesting wind power story from Ireland.
Although it is specific to that market, final rulings could still affect the whole industry.
I always find it rather amusing that while we have a certain group (two actually) of Green Loonies jumping up and down claiming that wind farms should be torn down if visible from parks and mountains, and argue that the turbines are completely ineffective and don't produce any useful power...
We have the industry, which is trying to work out how to deal with the current shoddy grid design that cannot accept all the power produced by wind farms, and has to tell the developers to turn them off and reject the power.
This leads to compensation payments, as the developers are contracted to deliver power at a given rate in order to pay for the investment they made - if the industry refuses to take the power, then the developer still has to be paid in order to find their up-front investment in building the farm.
I can only type in a short intro, as the whole item is 54-pages or more - and I don't have it in online format:
Irish wind developers should be compensated up to a fixed limit if output from projects is turned down by the system
Wind developers that operate turbines across the Irish Single Electricity Market (SEM) should be compensated up to a fixed limit if forced to reduce power production because they are producing more electricity than can be used, the SEM Committee has said.
The Committee, which is the decision-making authority on all matters concerning the SEM, set out its 'proposed to' position in a document (54-pages), following a consultation process earlier this year. It proposes limiting the amount of compensation that will be paid to operators of 'firm' wind projects, or those with guaranteed access to the grid, in the event of a 'curtailment' to a fixed 'defined curtailment limit'.
However, the document makes it clear that should a curtailment event take place, all operational wind farms – regardless of whether they are 'firm' or 'non-firm' projects – should be stood down on an equal basis.
The decision, which has been "eagerly anticipated" by the industry, would go some way to providing certainty on expected levels of compensation to support investment decisions said an energy law expert.
"Whilst some developers will be disappointed that it is proposed compensation for firm and partially firm projects will only continue up to a fixed point, the proposals have certainly scotched the rumour circulating recently in the market that there would be no or little compensation payable to generators in a curtailment event," he said. "Developers will be reviewing this position in more detail over the coming days and it will be interesting to see what further views come forward from stakeholders prior to a final decision being taken by the SEM Committee.
But no-one is yet prepared to create a large-scale storage infrastructure yet, and it will take years, if not decades to get in place.
There really is too much talk.
The UK is supposed to be a technology leader, but that is really a sad joke now If you look at Continental Europe, then you will find that it is way ahead of us, with storage and renewables already being not only developed and installed, but integrated.
I used to post about MW sized batteries (and other storage devices) being installed to absorb 'spare' wind power over there - but I doubted anyone was reading, so no longer add this info.
I just look at it, envy Continental Europe, then look back home and shake my head
I don't know if anyone else noticed, but the media just carried warnings about power shortages as soon as 2015, which could mean power cuts for non-critical area - and that probably means our homes if it does come about.
Just in case anyone thought I was scaremongering or making things up for effect, here's a BBC item about the renewed possibility of power cuts by 2015.
I would be worried about this, and not just brush it off, as the same has been forecast for some years now - and if you have not noticed, despite lower power consumption of individual devices, internet server and data farms are eating power that was not planned for in the recent past, and we are collectively using more devices that eat power, so despite lower consumption of those devices, their growing numbers are using more power overall.
And that is without the growth of electric vehicles - if everyone went out and bought one tomorrow, well, just use your imagination
Vestas has announced an upping of wind turbine size and power, and is on the way to the world’s largest offshore wind turbine with its 8 MW offering that has blades 80 m long made in the Isle of Wight.
Even so, testing will not take place until Jan 2013, and installation is not expected until 2014.
Two other makers hold the record at the moment, one for size with a 64 m blade (only 4.5 MW), while another has a 7.58 MW turbine in operation, since 2007.
And Vestas will have to get a move on, as there are other companies with 10 MW on the table.
I might add that if any of the claims were true, you can bet that the military would lay claim to them, and slap an "Official Secret" and D-Notice on them.
Just think... they could claim billions for research, and just pocket the lot and quietly let wind farms be installed near an enemy, then go on holiday to the Bahamas while their adversaries slowly went mad and killed themselves.
Claims that wind turbines "slaughter" birds are malicious myths propagated by the anti-wind turbine brigade.
What has happened over the years is that the same few incidents have been repeated over and over again by the antis, to the extent that those who do not bother to do their own research into available studies published on the effect believe that the anecdotal claims that refer to the few evidential incidents are representative of 'thousands'.
Handily, I can drop this in thanks to Amercian crank Donald Trump, who has promoted the same lie, AND slated the RSPB.
Even the RSPB has no general problem with wind turbines and bird deaths - it works to mitigate such effects by ensuring that turbines are not carelessly sited in locations where they intercept bird flight paths, and has no problem with correctly sited turbines.
See the handy news item that popped up today, with this correct information:
Nobody is claiming that birds will not be killed by encountering wind turbines, but they will also be killed by many other hazards, and in much greater numbers than will ever arise from the occasional blade strike.
If anyone want to save birds from being killed in the air, then they better take jets and propeller aircraft out of the sky.
And with the hours I have spent on the road, they probably want to have those closed down, as I have seen many birds killed by striking vehicles as they fly across traffic, and there are plenty of flat pigeons stuck to the roads around where I live.
The mere occasion of screwball Trump and his pet extremist group CATS claiming that wind turbines kill "thousands of birds each month" should be enough to classify the claim as tripe.
And if you think I am being unfair or biased - I suggest you try and get Trump to produce peer reviewed papers giving evidence and proof.
I might remind you when he sat in front of a Scottish Government committee and made claims about the effect of wind turbines (destroying torurism) in Scotland, and was asked what his evidence was, his reply was...
"I am the evidence!"
If you think I am making this up, it is a matter of record, and the whole meeting was recorded on video and is available online from the Scottish Government web site.
Claims that wind turbines "slaughter" birds are malicious myths propagated by the anti-wind turbine brigade.
I used to go up wind-turbines on a regular basis , with service engineers in attendance. They were under instructions to gather up any dead birds , they were put in the back of the van, and how they were disposed of - I never asked I assumed this so there was not a build up of evidence for walkers etc. to see
If there were enough engineers carrying out enough service visits to "hide" the thousands of birds the anti-wind-turbine groups lie about (where are photographs of wind turbines with piles of dead birds rotting below them?), then the wind farms would be bust paying for them and the vans and skips to carry them away in convoys.
But then again, the report are prepared by groups like the RSPB, who are clearly pro-wind and are falsifying their results and evidence... IF, that is, the antis were not massively over-stating things, and contradicting genuine studies and report.
If the engineers are indeed clearing carrion to keep the sites clean and tidy - which is actually a very responsible thing for their employers to have ordered them to do - then that will actually help prevent further death and injury to raptors, which would fly down to the carrion when attracted to, and could be struck by the turbine blades.
The claimed 'mass slaughter' is simply a proven lie now - but the antis will still keep on repeating the story as it suits the, and most of the public will accept what they say without checking. It's in the wild now, and will not go away. The only saving grace is that there is no tangible proof to support it, only to contradict it.
What's the point of showing a video with a single bird strike?
To have it repeated 10,000 times across the web and clain that 10,000 birds have been struck by turbine blades?
Bring us video and pictures of thousands, all in the one place, under the same turbine, or on the same wind farm - that might mean something, but does not exist.
And you saw what happened to Lefty the Racing Pigeon and his friends? Or did they meet a flying cat or fly into overhead wires?
One or two injured birds is not the issue - it's the claim of "thousands" by Donald Trump, CATS, the John Muir Trust, and I'm guessing also the Mountaineering Council of Scotland (since it is joined at the hip to JMT in opposing wind farms anywhere), but not one of them has produced an iota of EVIDENCE - just anecdotes.
I saw this on the BBC, with the same 'Petrol from air' line as an intro.
But where do they produce petrol from air?
To use their own words:
The “petrol from air” technology involves taking sodium hydroxide and mixing it with carbon dioxide before "electrolysing" the sodium carbonate that it produces to form pure carbon dioxide.
Hydrogen is then produced by electrolysing water vapour captured with a dehumidifier.
They then use the carbon dioxide and hydrogen to produce methanol which in turn is passed through a gasoline fuel reactor, creating petrol.
At what point does this description involve the use of 'air' which is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon, and a mere 0.04% carbon dioxide, the first component mentioned in the “petrol from air” process.
They seem to use a lot of other things in their description, but not 'air'.
And it's not April 1.
I can't put my finger on it, but I am almost sure this process was described a few years ago, but largely dismissed due to the amount of energy it consume to make petrol.
The process was, as I seem to recall, given curiosity value, but not practicality, on the basis that it was daft not to use the electricity it consumed, or they hydrogen, to power suitable engines, rather than throw yet more energy at it to create methanol, then petrol.
I wonder if it is the same folk back with the same idea repackaged as a con spin to raise more money for the same idea that was rejected, and are claiming the use of 'green' power to make their process appear less wasteful?
I'm not saying this as something new, many have pointed it out before, but it seems to be utterly insane to promote processes that produce fuels that use other fuels and energies in their production, thereby rendering them inefficient and wasteful.
In the BBC interview, the director questioned carefully sidesteps all questions about efficiency, and never answers the question by giving statements about other things.
Donald Trump is a nasty piece of work, and gets nastier whenever he's exposed - he's now often not even man enough to do his own dirty work, but likes to hide behind his operatives and get them to act as his henchmen and mouthpieces. I often wonder if George Sorial has any qualms about his job as Trump's right hand man and the bull he has to shovel - or if he just smiles as he measure the height of the piles of money he must getting in order to be worked from behind
The film-maker Bill Forsyth has been described by Donald Trump's organisation as a "misinformed jackass" after he accused the property magnate of "egotistical bullying" at his golf course near Aberdeen.
In an article for the Guardian, Forsyth said there were strong parallels between Trump's efforts to remove local people living next to his now mothballed £750m golf resort and Forsyth's fictional US billionaire in his cult classic Local Hero from 1983, which won the best film Bafta.
The director said You've Been Trumped, an award-winning documentary investigating the experiences of Trump's nearest neighbours being shown on BBC2 this Sunday, was "akin to 1970s Romania".
He said: "We're watching real lives and livelihoods mercilessly put to hazard by a malign concoction of egotistical bullying, corporate muscle-flexing, craven averting of gaze by national politicians and crass misreading of events by local authorities, including police."
Trump's right-hand man, George Sorial, retorted that Forsyth was simply trying to exploit Trump's fame. He told the Daily Mail: "Mr Forsyth is nothing more than a misinformed jackass looking for a few headlines on the back of the Trump name."
Sorial had initially refused to respond to Forsyth's criticisms after being contacted by the Guardian on Wednesday.
He instead described the documentary as a "gross misrepresentation of the facts" which presented "the myopic views of a very small fringe element that are not respected and are widely regarded as a national embarrassment for Scotland".
Earlier this week, Trump published several hostile tweets about the documentary by Anthony Baxter, describing those who objected to his golf course as "morons" who had "made my development far more successful than anticipated".
He also told Baxter: "Your documentary has died many deaths. You have, in my opinion, zero talent." The film has won 10 film festival awards around the world. The radical film-maker Michael Moore said it had "blown him away".
Local Hero and Donald Trump: 'a malign mix of bullying, muscle flexing and craven politicians'
For Bill Forsyth, the director of the classic film Local Hero, watching a documentary on the impact of Donald Trump's golf course on local residents left him 'dazed and shocked'. Here he explains why...