In this edition we have an article from the Daily Mail that addresses the government's decision to buy more wind turbines, of course in the usual fashion of the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2713830/Lunacy-sea-As-Ministers-agree-world-s-biggest-wind-farm-Brighton-Britain-succumbed-catastrophic-folly.html
Lunacy on sea: As Ministers agree
to the world's biggest wind farm off Brighton, has Britain ever
succumbed to a more catastrophic folly?
This is definitely not a moronic argument, the debate on energy is a key topic in the running of this country, and there's certainly nothing slanderous about this article, even if it does only tell the story from one point of view, but I do have a problem with the way that it just jumps to conclusions without any evidence to support them. I know it's an opinionated article but all points should be backed up with accurate and reliable evidence. This is a typical Daily Mail argument that only concentrates on one side and it instantly tells the reader which side it's on by giving three case studies of the horror of wind turbines. Of course these are different wind turbines to the ones we will be talking about later but according to the Daily Mail they are obviously the same, making that point invalid. It's not as if there on a large scale either, it's just three isolated cases of civilian turbines.
We then finally turn our attention to the commercial turbines and we bring up the usual points about killing migratory birds and how they look ugly, which I will agree with for the most part, I personally don't like the sight of a bunch of densely packed turbines, but one or two don't hurt the landscape in my eyes. But then we get to where the evidence starts to fall apart, now the article doesn't source these statistics about capacity and that's probably because if it did the maths wouldn't add up. You see the largest wind farm in the country is the London Array, which can produce around 1000MW at maximum capacity. The wind farm the government plans is around three times the size of this farm and so that would make the theoretical capacity around 3000MW, which is 1000MW more than the largest coal power station in the country, which is located in Cotham.
Of course that calculation is assuming that wind energy is constant, which The Mail points out that it isn't, claiming that it will only reach a third of its capacity, which is really a conservative estimate as Britain is one of the windiest countries in the world and that figure is more of a global average. This means that this wind farm would indeed produce around the same amount of energy as a coal power station, sure it would cost a lot more but it has no harmful by products and a very low carbon emission. It's also a hell of a lot more sustainable, something that this article never bothers to bring up. Wind at least has the potential to be sustainable in the future, where as gas and coal are fossil fuels and so therefore are not in any way sustainable. It seems amazing to me that this article would just completely ignore that point being as sustainability is the key argument in the energy debate, something of course the author doesn't want the reader to find out.
His fetish with fossil fuels is also flawed in the fact that it too clashes with his original arguments. coal and gas are now exported from foreign countries due to Margaret Thatcher successfully using it all up and so now it has to be exported from coal rich countries such as Poland where it destroys the local landscape. That permanently destroys the landscape, unlike wind turbines that can be deconstructed, but coal mines can't. I suppose that's alright though because that would happen in Poland, which according to The Mail is filled with chancers who steal British jobs from British people, those apes don't deserve a beautiful country. Either that or some other bigotry the Daily Mail will hurl at them.
We then finally turn our attention to the commercial turbines and we bring up the usual points about killing migratory birds and how they look ugly, which I will agree with for the most part, I personally don't like the sight of a bunch of densely packed turbines, but one or two don't hurt the landscape in my eyes. But then we get to where the evidence starts to fall apart, now the article doesn't source these statistics about capacity and that's probably because if it did the maths wouldn't add up. You see the largest wind farm in the country is the London Array, which can produce around 1000MW at maximum capacity. The wind farm the government plans is around three times the size of this farm and so that would make the theoretical capacity around 3000MW, which is 1000MW more than the largest coal power station in the country, which is located in Cotham.
Of course that calculation is assuming that wind energy is constant, which The Mail points out that it isn't, claiming that it will only reach a third of its capacity, which is really a conservative estimate as Britain is one of the windiest countries in the world and that figure is more of a global average. This means that this wind farm would indeed produce around the same amount of energy as a coal power station, sure it would cost a lot more but it has no harmful by products and a very low carbon emission. It's also a hell of a lot more sustainable, something that this article never bothers to bring up. Wind at least has the potential to be sustainable in the future, where as gas and coal are fossil fuels and so therefore are not in any way sustainable. It seems amazing to me that this article would just completely ignore that point being as sustainability is the key argument in the energy debate, something of course the author doesn't want the reader to find out.
His fetish with fossil fuels is also flawed in the fact that it too clashes with his original arguments. coal and gas are now exported from foreign countries due to Margaret Thatcher successfully using it all up and so now it has to be exported from coal rich countries such as Poland where it destroys the local landscape. That permanently destroys the landscape, unlike wind turbines that can be deconstructed, but coal mines can't. I suppose that's alright though because that would happen in Poland, which according to The Mail is filled with chancers who steal British jobs from British people, those apes don't deserve a beautiful country. Either that or some other bigotry the Daily Mail will hurl at them.
My point after all this is that this article has not sourced a single piece of information from a reliable source, the only statistics it quotes are either plucked out of thin air or come from The Mail itself, famed for being a reliable source and not just scaremongering fascists. This article gets my moron approval rating for making sweeping statements that are flawed on a basic level, but that's all fine because we can just make up a few statistics to prove our point. I don't know why I should be surprised, it's just the usual biased bullshit I have to sit through when reading The Mail.
No comments:
Post a Comment