New Green Jack New Green Jack

91 responses to “Copenhagen here we come (well not me)”

    • Jeffrey Lam

      Good points Dale. You have a HSE report to chase up and a blog to contribute to 🙂 Only joking.

      Best of luck to Isabelle. Sounds like she has a good grasp of the issues, and on what the UK are doing (or rather, not doing) about it…

      Best regards

        • TW

          The theory of clamate change being caused by increase in concentration of CO2int he atmosphere is exactly that -a theory.

          The cliamate change industy has managed to drive awareness of the theory and computer models to the point nwheer many people assume that these theories are facst.

          Sdaly, the effects that we should be seeing in ters of redcuced polar ice coverage and increasing sea levels e.g. in the Maldives are not actually happening. Arctic ice at its greatest coverage for 30 year, tghe expedition to measure Arctic warming abandoned due to the early onset of winter and the sea level around the maldives remainaing at the level of the 1970s.

          We should be lookin got conserve oil – it’s a fantastic resource and the ost portable source of energy so far found for road transport – but it is finite and we should preserve it. However, to generate electricty we need reliable and seciure sources, and whilst on-shore wind does have a place, the inherent instability and unreliability makes it suitable only for a samll proportion of total cpactity, unless we massively over-provision and accept the cost of much plant standing idle – not exactly a great use of resources.

          The climate change industry tells us that CO2 is the greatest porblem – bigger and more important than any other. If that is trurle ythe case, then we only have one solution that will reliably generate power with zero carbon – nuclear. This is probaly the most unpopular of all but if the theories are correct, then it’s the only way ahead. However, I don’t like it, and nor do most people – esepcially those who are arguing that zero carbon is the only way and that difficult decisoons must be made. But for some reason, not that difficult decision.

          Before we allow the western world’s economy to be shackled by these theories, let’s open up the UK climate change model for analysis n(currently prevented for commercial reasons), stop scaremongering with predictions that are based on very flaky assumptions and do some serious measurements.

          This won’t appeal to those who belive in climate change being casued by CO2, but we should start to reaise that this subject should be informed by scientific research, empirical observations and provable facts. Currently it is a matter of faith and belief which leads to passion and hyperbole -not ideal.

            • Paul UK

              “Sdaly, the effects that we should be seeing in ters of redcuced polar ice coverage and increasing sea levels e.g. in the Maldives are not actually happening.”

              Paul UK:
              Sea levels are rising, that is undisputed by scientists.
              Arctic sea ice is thinning, this is a fact and proven by many sources of information, including the Catlin Arctic Survey, satellite data etc. As a result the average extent of sea ice is reducing over the decades.

              “However, to generate electricty we need reliable and seciure sources, and whilst on-shore wind does have a place, the inherent instability…”

              Paul UK:
              The variability of wind is overstated by anti-wind NIMBYs.
              I suggest you read the International Energy Agency report about renewables and variability.
              A large number of networked, variable sources of electricity are actually more stable than a few large single sources.
              The UK is actually the lead nation in developing marine renewable energy, which means there is a lot of economic potential and manufacturing jobs in that sector.

              “Before we allow the western world’s economy to be shackled by these theories, let’s open up the UK climate change model for analysis…”

              Paul UK:
              Climate Models are not the basis of the science, they are just one of the tools that are used.

              If you need any more info or education, I’m happy to teach.

            • Jonny Holt

              Hello TW,

              Theory – a misunderstood word – is certainly not the pejorative you imply it to be. Unlike mere belief or opinion, theories of every sort are the basis and strength of science. They are advanced by scientists and thinkers, supported by more or less evidence and will always stand or fall according to the accrual of further evidence – which either reinforce the theory or cause it to be modified or discreditted. The theories of evolution, relativity, string and many others are always up for modification, revision or destruction in the light of new discovery. They are brave enough to risk it all.

              The theory of anthropogenic climate change is one that is supported by a great deal of evidence – much of which is beyond my grasp and that of many others. Conversely, the theory of entirely natural (usually solar cycle induced) climate change is – according to its adherents – also supported by a great deal of evidence which is probably also too complex and esoteric for the average person, if gone into in rigorous detail.

              So we the majority must make up our minds based not on a thorough knowledge of fantastic quantities of data and the many collaborative disciplines that come together under the broad umbrella of climate science but on a general hunch as to whether the view of one group of scientists is likely to be more credible than the alternative.

              My own hunch is based on the certain knowledge that I can spot those self-serving, wanton, boorish, profligate, hard-core “climate deniers” at several hundred paces. I have the misfortune to work with many of them and in my mind they give climate denial a bad name. The distinguishing features of these individuals are primarily a strident demand that their liberty to behave as they wish should not be curtailed and the enthusiastic embrace of any apparent evidence to show the world to be cooling, sea levels remaining constant and mankind generally to be having a negligible effect on the environment – declining fish stocks, rain-forest depletion, chemical pollution and so on notwithstanding.

              The one opinion informs and sustains the other in these people. Such a life – fuelled by oil, coal and uranium – is at heart a life not only of finite consumption but also of indulgence and personal gratification. Yet it is also inherently polluting – in the good old, bad old sense of smoke and exhaust, soot, tetra-ethyl lead, sulphur dioxide and other nasties. So we have a group who claim that man-made greenhouse gases are doing no damage to the world, while manifestly living a high-emission life that is dependent on their being right – and simultaneously squandering the capital that underpins their appetites. Fundamentally, this is – at best – appallingly ill-mannered behaviour towards our host planet, to risk that we might become responsible for its demise.

              In short, denying a link between the changing climate and our own actions can only be done by people who have an interest in there being no such link.

              Best regards,


            • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

              What ie REALLY sad, is that you, among others, fail to realise that – theories aside – The Earth is warming – despite what you prefer to believe. Tha Arctic ice is set to be non-existant in summer by 2020, I believe, and glaciers are diminishing at un-precidented rates here and there. The list goes on. It is observed facts. To dismiss the fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased from about 1/4 to about 3/8 of a percent in my lifetime so far, as having nothing to do with this, simply shows that you are more of a fool than merely an optimist.
              Moreover I would like to state that “Wind-energy” has helped greatly in the past, but that the erection of collosal punk-haircuts on sticks – labelled “Wind-energy station” does not. Please read my letter below a few pages.

            • John House

              theory or proved, chill out, if we are wrong it only takes a good crew with a crane to take the turbine down, bit of landscaping, would’nt know it was there.

              Try doing that with Hinckley point, if we started this afternoon it would still be a blot on the landscape for my (non existant) grand children.

        • dale Vince

          Hi Jeff, you’re right the HSE thing is way overdue. I chased them again last week and they still don’t want us to release the ‘final version’ of the report.

          I’m told it’s because they are waiting for answers from the turbine manufacturers, and they’ve not been forthcoming, for some reason.

          I’ll give it a little while longer, then I just might publish what we have anyway.

          And I def have been a slacker here on the blog lately.

          Will try to do better…..:)


            • Jeffrey Lam

              Hi Dale,
              I know, one of those things. Who knows why they take so long?

              Looks like there are more comments from you now, which is a definite improvement 🙂

    • Simba

      I love the Titanic Metaphor, as accurate as it is inspired.

      look forward to hearing about Copenhagen from someone at ‘ground zero’


    • Paul

      Dale: “Too often we see people with 10 or 20 years left to live opposing windmills…”

      And supporting nuclear energy!

        • TW

          If this comment was about any other factor than age, it would be illegal. As it is, it presupposes two things;

          1. Wind farms are perfect in every situation that Dale says they are – no debate allowed.

          2. people with less than 30 yeasr to live have less right to express a view than any others – to clarify, would Dale exclude those with a terminal illness from voting as they won’t live very long?

          I was very surprised to read this kind of intolernat sentiment from Dale – some other socities have valued certain groups – beit through race, religion or disability – as having less right than the majority, and I think that generally, they are viewed as bad. However, I suppose that if a person disagrees with Dale’s personal views then they would appear to forfit any rights they thought they had.

          Deeply saddening to see those people who kept the world free of tyranny – fascism and communism – written off by someone who has massively benefited from growing up and living in a free society where debate is encouraged and democracy allows compromisees to be reached.

          Just because a person is not young does not mean they are wrong to attempt to inject some realism and experience into the energy debate. Wind farms that don’t work are more wasteful than any type of fossil fuel, and whilst many people instinctivey hate nuclear, it might be becasue they have never had the opportunity to understand it.

          The aim should be to promote those microgenration schems that have a low impact on the environment but a huge impact on how we generate and use energy – take power back into the community and away from single organsiations and people – whether it’s the big energy companies, the government or Dale – we should take responsibilty ourselves rather than leaving to the nanny state or a self appointed nanny to tell us what is good for us.

          Those of us who have had to strive in life have a great deal more experience than those who simply tell others what is good for them.

            • Paul

              I’m deeply saddened to see someone exploiting the sympathy vote by bringing up the past exploits of todays pensioners.

              My grandfather was a war veteran and suffered as a POW in the far east. It doesn’t mean that he was correct about everything.

              Can you explain just what wind farms are so bad that they would have a worse carbon footprint than coal or gas??

                • TW

                  The that that have a worse carbon footprint are those that don’t work – expensive to build and remove and generate very little power during their service life.

                  Thnaks for the comment re your grandfather – he wasn’t right about everything, but probably wasn’t wrong eitehr.

                  It’s your and Dale’s assertion that those pople who don’t have long to live are wrong aboput widn farms – although I would assume that if they supported Dale’s beliefs then they would then become correct and valuable supporters.

                  My point is that rejecting a person’s view, and even their right to hold and express a view based purely on their age (or years left to live to capture Dale’s statement accurately) is wrong, and if Dale ha d made that comment based on gender or race, it would be illegal.

                  I feel stronngly that those people who have built the free(ish) society that we live in have a right to be treated with respect. Just becasue a person is young does not give them the right to enforce their views on others.

                  Dale himself is getting close to the 20 or so years left to live based on average life expectancy and so following his own logic, I assume he will quietly withdraw into private life and cease to support or object to anything by the time he is in his mid 50s. Or perhaps not…

                  The reality is that we live in a democracy and imperfect as it is, it allows people to express their views and hold debates. Governemnts that attempt to force particular beliefs onto the people ususlay end badly, and in a free society, the same happens frequently to single issue fanatics.

                  I would prefer to see factual debate rather than the emotive language that Dale uses, especially when he then proceeds to express his personal prejudices. Let’s have facts, figures, honest & open disclosure of the comparasions between on-shore and off-shore wind, take a look at hydro, get the facts about nuclear and end the scaremongering that the only way to keep the lights on in Stroud is to build a wind farm in Stinchcombe – that one just has to be a great big fib because I can’t see the people of stroud being happy to sit in darkness whenever the wind doesn’t blow…

                    • Paul UK

                      Wind farms have similar carbon footprints to nuclear power and the energy payback ratio is similar to other electricity sources, even when all the maintenance, decommissioning etc. is taken into account.

                      Your information seems to be based on a lot of myths touted on the internet by the anti-wind turbine propaganda crowd.
                      There is plenty of research into different energy sources. Ironically one of the best sources that lists the research into carbon footprints and energy payback is on the Nuclear Energy Association web site:


                      I think you also read the wrong thing into what has been said. The context of the comment is related to Dales support for the young campaigner, implying she has a vested interest in the future and the potential burdens.

                      My comment about nuclear energy is based on my own experience of the people i have come across that support it.

                    • Justin Noe

                      I have absolutely no doubt that everyone agrees that what our fore-fathers went through was the worst hell anyone could face. We commend them for their bravery and selflessness and hope that history will never repeat itself.
                      That said I fail to see what this has to do with Paul’s sweeping generalisation about older generations and NIMBYs. I believe that there still is a serious lack of investment in renewable technology perhaps owing to fears of change.
                      Our economies have been built on age old fossil fuels and debasing this old technology appears to be financial suiside to some. The reality is far more exiting: clean air, energy security, falling energy prices and millions of jobs. Yes this country can run on renewables and energy effeciency! Only the NIMBYs will assure you that’s not possible.
                      I worry that all the money poured into CSS and clean fossil fuels, just like Biofuels will turn out to be a big waste of money. When we could have spent it on tomorrows technology.
                      I suspect nuclear will be an unfortunate stop gap and I hope this will be limited to a bare minimum. The clean up will cost the country billions of pounds and be with us for hundreds of years.
                      A nice legacy for our childrens childrens I’m sure you’ll agree.
                      So yes, I believe matters of climate change should involve the educated younger generation more than today’s stick-in-the-muds!! Afterall they’ll face the results of our actions.

                    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

                      You are right by my clock TW ! Dale+ Co. have a pathological aversion to simple facts, prefering to stay cocooned in their plastic techno-world of jargon that we all need to read-up on to be able to speak to their highnesses.
                      Simple facts like
                      Llandeilo public meeting July ’05
                      Cost of proposed farm ——————- 153M
                      Annual income from sale of energy — 000.2M
                      Life-expectancy of machinery 25 years.
                      Sadly – or conveniently for them – “The times tables” 25 x 0.2, for instance “don’t count”. Who needs times tables with an input of cash from oil, coal, etc, from the government that “the public” can only squirm at in “envy” ( or rage).
                      The government likes to look to be “doing something constructive” in these cosmicly dangerous times, and care even less than they know of the physical facts concerning “Modern windfarms”. Faacts as stated above. Facts for which there is horribly simple explanation – after some 20 years of solo effort in the field of “Wind energy”
                      Please feel free to email me bert dot windon at gmail dot com

            • dale Vince

              Hi TW – I thought I’d better say a few words here.

              First I think you’re twisting my meaning. To say the least. What I’m saying is not that ‘old people’ are not right or should not have an opinion – that’s what you’ve said – not me. I’m saying that too often people with just 10 or 20 years to live are standing in the way of real progress, vital actions that will improve our chances of abating the worst effects of climate change and or securing sustainable future energy sources – and those issues, whether we achieve that or not – are issues that will impact younger generations far more. So they should be heard.

              It’s a fact that the planning system in the UK (for onshore wind energy) is un democratic – a small number of loud (and yes – old) voices holds sway, over officers advice, over national policy and national need and over common sense. I see it nearly every day – but only in on shore wind energy – which is the only energy source in the hands of local councils.

              Nuclear gets decided by the government of course – if that’s what you mean by democracy in planning I’m all for it – there’s no way nukes would make it through the same process as wind has to.

              And the idea that wind doesn’t work is just plain daft. As absurd as trying to present me as being anti ‘old people’.


                • Michael MacKian

                  Let’s get back on track here! I had my 68th birthday this week, and plan living till I’m 120 or so. That means I have a strong vested interest in keeping this planet livable – not just for my children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren, but for ME TOO!!! So it’s time we got that damned planning system sorted out so the Nimbys of whatever age are put in their place!

                • TW

                  If people don’t like the decisons made by the planning system, then they can stand for election and with enough support, they will be the ones making the decisions. Coucils are elected by secret vote and are accoutable at the ballot box.

                  I don’t see how this system can be described as undemocratic – imposition by a national body could be described as undemocratioc, but local democracy is alive an well.

                  I note that Dale says he likes old people, but just a few lines above says “a small number of loud (and yes – old) voices” – what relevance is age? If you mentioned another factor e.g. gender, then that would be close to being illegal, so why do you feel the need to mention age once again.

                  If you as wind farm activist you were categorised as ‘loud (and yes – in late middle age)’ I’m sure you would feel that your age was not relevant.

                  Please stop the comments about the age of those you disagree with.

                    • dale Vince

                      Hi TW – the reason I mentioned age in the first place is one of observation. You probably have limited or no knowledge or experience of planning meetings for wind energy. My comments are observation based. Time and again wind farm applications that meet national and local planning policies and which have officer recommendations (for approval) are turned down by elected members – driven by a few loud (and yes old) voices. The facts are the facts, if you look at the average age of your typical anti wind NYMBY – it’s pushing 70.

                      Your arguments are specious. Age is an issue it’s a simple as that. That’s not ageist.

                      And, BTW, the local planning system is undemocratic because it fails to represent the will of the majority – the silent majority. It’s very common for local elected councillors to just follow the loud minority voices, taking what they think is a populist stance.

                      And National planning decisions are not un democratic just because they are National – remember we also vote for a a national bunch of politicians.


                    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

                      It’s seldom that anyone manages to become senile in their 40’s ? Congratulations !

            • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

              Totally correct TW, please read my various comments and info. on this page.

            • John House

              I’m with the micro generation.
              I recently travelled through the old GDR (eastern Germany) where you can tell size of the village or town by the number of turbines planted next to it, and then the size of the so;ar panel array in the field next door.

              When Enron wind went down with the rest of Enron in 2001 GE bought the company, since then GE have built and installed more wind turbines than the rest of the world combined.

              I am a tree hugging hippy, but you could never accuse GE of anything other than profit making industrial complex with a view for the future.

    • Jonny Holt

      Hello Dale,

      Working on the principle that sometimes the best course of action is to do nothing, I applaud your decision not to go to Copenhagen.

      Don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe that action is needed – just not yet more talk – and thankfully you are better placed to take that action than most of the rest of us.

      Incidentally, did anyone else see this story (from Stockholm, close enough to Copenhagen to be vaguely relevant to this topic) about a new take on green electricity generation? It is a renewable resource but I imagine Viva! would have something to say about it ….

      Best regards,


        • Alexandra Deegan

          Good luck Isabelle…

          Be passionate, honest and truthful…. but when some slimy euro/uk-politico… goes for a photo opportunity with you and the ‘kids’…. make sure you get more out of it than they do!

          Perhaps it’s just us jaundiced, sceptical, ageing baby-boomers… that perhaps know better than to ever trust politicians?

          (Apart from one, maybe… Caroline Lucas)

          This says it all for me re: the Neue Labour’s attitude to policy implementation, back home.

          Vince’s wonderful vid clip with Robert Llewellyn tells it like it is…. we need home-owners to get savvy fast and quit on mass the Eon, RWE, Npower, BritGas cartels et al…

          We all need to install the just-o-the horizon in-house Lithium 2.5-5kw output batteries to store and turn each house into a home-grown PowerStation… and support larger scheme renewable power systems where we can.

          The Severn Barrage for instance… stuck in endless round-robin feasibility b#llsh#t studies… meanwhile another £5bn will go to those city banksters… in the next few weeks… a lot of which will go straight into more bonuses… but does get non-exec jobs post parliament aka Tony Blair’s annual £2m kick-back from JP Morgan…..(nice)

          But I digress….

          But what do we really get dwelling wise? More of those poorly conceived Barratt/Persimmon/Westerley crap (product) boxes… with no energy view whatsoever to the future…. with councils just keen to bed down the property taxes that these last century type suburbia ‘supermarket’ supported villages feed off.

          So wakey, wakey Britain’s planning councils…. we really are not blessed with limitless time to get this right!!

          As Gandhi said…

          “You must be the change you want to see in the world.”


          “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win!”

            • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

              Dear Alexander,
              I am sure you are on the right trail regarding what to me sounds like a kind of energy-production devolution to individual premises. This fits with many obvious facts like
              1) no investment – and loss thro’ transmission – in extra “grid” to meet centralized sites.
              2) Neither wind nor sunshine is centralized ( yet ! – allthough I won’t be surprised to seem them with huge “green grants” for having a go)
              3) The rather less obvious fact that there is a size of best economy – minimum payback time – for Turbine-Alternator Devices, or TADs as I call them, and this – believe it or not appears to be around a metre diameter. At this sort of size the T costs about the same as the A. As you consider doubling the size, each time you do so, (replacing 4 with 1) the weight of materials in the T doubles (relative to the total weight of the four) and the cost of the A halves (relative to the total cost of the four)
              Going the other way, of course it’s the A-bill that doubles each time, and the T-bill halves. It took many years to realise this !
              Search for my blog on “Copenhagen here we .. ” or email bert dot windon at

                • dale Vince

                  Hey GGV, that’s an interesting sounding theory but it sits at odds with the real world costs of wind generated electricity that I’ve seen. Turbines (or TADs if you prefer) with a one metre diameter are among (if not the) the most expensive forms of wind energy. You can measure that in cost to install per kW or in cost per kWh generated – it doesn’t matter.

                  There is an optimum size you are right about that – although it’s not fixed by theory, it moves. Last time I looked 800kW turbines were it (48m blades or so) and above and below that it got more expensive. There are many many factors in this.

                  But one metre machines are, and IMO, will always be at the very expensive end of wind energy.

                  To say otherwise is to not have looked at what you can actually buy in the world today, what it costs and what it produces – some pretty straight forward empirical evidence.


    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

      223 Nikiup
      Veliko Tarnovo

      Dear Sir or Madam,

      I have seen that Ofgem is proposing a huge investmnt in
      what it probably believes to be “Clean energy” – Windfarms ? Please
      will you go slowly through the “bit of spam” “Wind Info”, below. It
      is one result of some 20 years of (solo) “R+D” into “wind energy”. (
      which has lead to a completely successful result, I should add).
      It is, I think you will agree, more than a BIT serious.
      I attatch a Photo to show that the TAD reffered-to exists, and shortly
      I will have video of the device performing.

      “Wind Info”
      Data from public meeting at Llandeilo, uk July 2005
      Cost of farm ————– 153M GBP
      Annual return from energy supplied —– 000.2M GBP

      Meanwhile will have us believe that they provide a return
      of 200 to 300% p.a.!!??
      Why invest in anything else ! ?

      The Good news
      It is quite possible to get several Whole percent of cost
      returned – annually – from a SENSIBLE design of Turbine-ALTERNATOR Device.
      I stress “Alternator”, to highlight the fact, to which, you may
      notice, reference is never made in talk of “windfarms”.
      A fat lot of use is a turbine without an alternator ! hence I call
      the complete thing a “TAD”

      The Simple Facts
      There are two simple ( but not to find ! ) reasons which account –
      very well – for the disparity in these figures i.e. C 5% (from
      a sensible design) cf C 0.13% from current “technology”.
      Look away now, if you think it will be easy to find them.
      They are:
      1) TADs have an unusual “Economy of Size”,
      The cost of facing a given area of weather, is necklace-shaped
      function of (log) SIZE of the TADs deployed, because the two
      components (T and A) have Opposite “Economy of Size”.
      One T to replace 4 of half the diameter will require 8 times the
      quantity of materials (of any one of the 4) to make. The cost of 1/4
      as many turbines of twice the diameter, is therefore DOUBLE that of
      the 4 times as many which they replace.
      One A of 4 times the thro’put, costs only about twice as much as any
      one of the 4 which it replaces, in my experience. The Alternator bill
      is therefore HALVED by doubling the diameter of the TADs. (and making
      1/4 as many)
      Lowest farm-cost ocurrs around sizes where the Ts costs about the
      same as the As. This certainly happens at around 0.5 to 1.5? m
      (for a very effective design) – which just Happens, to be a very
      convenient size.
      I could also point-out, that fitting the fan in a carefully
      designed duct reduces the weight to about a fifth of that of an “Open”
      design. I stress “carefully” !!
      designed. (and with good reson).
      Current (80m high) “technology” runs at constant revs. which wastes
      high winds, causing the power taken from the wind to be more or less
      “pro-rata” with windspeed. They still manage to be wiping-out
      the last few Golden Eagles in Italy, though, so “that’s quite useful
      if you farm sheep” I guess.
      The power taken from the wind, by a TAD running at a speed which
      varies to suit the wind, ( instead of changing the angle of the
      “blades” (wings)) is Cubicly related to windspeed.

      About 3780 of the TADs pictured herewith face the same area of
      weather as one 40m diameterr “1 MW turbine”, supply 380 kW from 11
      m/s wind (Actual result – which was also indicated by design
      “numerical model”) and 1.8 MWatt from 18 m/s wind ( indicated by the
      same model) .
      Totat weight is about 1/5 that of the (1000 tonne ?!) block of
      concrete ALONE to which the monster is bolted !!
      This translates to several Whole percent of cost returned p.a. in
      very many sites
      The TADs can hang one below another. Columns of them can then
      be suspended from a catenery cable to a suitable high object such as a
      “power pylon”, or indeed can hang within the volume of the pylon
      itself. A low-voltage line would need to be added to the the
      pylons. As you can see, they also go perfectly in a “Tadfrey”
      atop the house. img.2180
      N.B. If you look on homepage, (May 2009) you
      will see that 3 french designers/Architects have been awarded a prize
      merely for suggesting some such scheme.
      They neither own a useful TAD design, nor, it seems, are at all
      familiar with “Power pylons”,

      If half of the energy supplied by a system returning, for
      instance, 5% p.a. of its cost, is used to extend the system, then it
      will double in size, value, and output, with the passing of each
      100/2.5 x logn(double, 2), or about 28 years.
      Substituting even as much as 1% for the 5, we can see that there is
      no possibility of growth without continuous INPUT from elsewhere but
      the wind. I.e it is not a net energy supply At All !!

      Sadly, (some ) councillors find this little arithametic
      homework “too much to struggle through” and prefer to simply hand over
      our cash to “Vestas” and “Gamesa” – for instance – to go and further
      crucify the Earth. Then, I take it, they go party with them – drink
      long green
      drinks and feel good about themselves.?
      My “Advokat” thinks it is some more “spam”. It is really very sad.
      Well that about wraps it up. Hope you are still awake !
      bert dot windon @ gmail dot com for photos

        • Paul UK

          There are flaws in the design of the ‘pylon’ wind towers idea.
          The swept area of the blades is the crucial factor for providing greater amounts of energy from a turbine. The bigger the better.

          Also height is an important factor. The pylon idea would have smaller diameter blades at the top of the pylon, that is the exact opposite of what you need to maximise output.

          The electrical gear required in each tower would make it expensive. How many generators work at grid voltages??
          Usually the voltage is stepped up before supplying the grid, so the pylon scheme would probably add considerable cost.

          Your turbines would be subjected to the same wind speed problems that any wind turbine has, those are governed by structural integrity and the fact that the output has to be synced to the grid. So the idea that a turbine is attached to a pylon, makes no difference to what it can do. It has to ‘not break’ and it has to sync with the grid. These factors will limit the operational parameters.

          The other point is that you provide no real references to your figures or ‘costs’. You make claims about materials used, but I don’t see any well researched evidence about increased use of materials. I would expect to see carbon footprints (gCO2/kWh) of ever larger turbines going up if more materials were used in their construction. Where are the figures to show this??

          The only real figures that count with energy are:
          1. carbon footprints (gCO2/kWh)
          2. energy payback ratios
          3. financial payback ratios

          Aesthetics and other environmental issues have to be assessed against the 3 primary ones.

        • dale Vince

          GGV, there are fundamental flaws in what you say here that call into question your real grasp of the issues. here’s the first example that jumped off the page at me, you say –

          “Current (80m high) “technology” runs at constant revs. which wastes high winds, causing the power taken from the wind to be more or less “pro-rata” with windspeed.”

          This is nonsense. Current fixed speed technology machines may run at fixed speeds but they still harness the cube law to be found in the energy of the wind – they do not operate pro rata to wind speed. Grab yourself any one of dozens of publicly available power curves from commercial wind turbines and you will see this for yourself.

          If you have this wrong what real handle do you have on this subject?


    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

      Sorry, what figures and costs have I not made “real reference” to ?
      What is the “Pylon wind towers idea” please. It means nothing to me.
      What I pointed-out in the letter is self-evident and all around us
      every day. It is sometimes called Arithametic, and references are not
      usually needed when stating, for instance, that 2 x 2 is 4, (Swept
      area, for instance of double the diameter) whilst 2 x 2 x 2 (volume
      of materials required for x2 size) is 8. Most people – thank
      something or other – accept – they know ! – that this is the case.
      On the other hand, not everyone may be aware that One large
      Alternator costs about half as much as 4 small ones to do the same
      job. It is however roughly-speaking a fact of life which you can
      check-out if you wish. It was when I was buying, anyway.
      The above two simple facts make the Total cost of facing a given
      area of weather a necklace-shaped function of (log) size of TADs
      deployed as I said in the letter.
      The other information regarding the power taken from the wind at
      various speeds are from actual trials, and as I stated, the 11 m/s
      result is well in line with what I had expected if I wasn’t fooling
      The two operating modes for a TAD – Constant revs, varying
      pitch, versus Constant Pitch, varying revs. give totally different
      power v windspeed characteristics. This is due to Arithametic , and
      the definition of “power” which is “push x speed in the direction in
      which we are pushing”
      The constant revs mode ( of “Modern windfarms”) gives a more or less
      prorata relationship i.e. twice the speed gives twice the power (INTO
      the Alt.) whereas “Constant Pitch” mode (revs vary to suit windspeed)
      gives a more or less cubic relationship, i.e. if the speed doubles the
      power put INTO the A becomes 2x2x2 what it was at the lower speed.
      I hope this will dispurse at least some of your current fog
      regarding the science of getting energy from the wind,
      Any TAD must be somehow placed in the wind to be any use at all.
      I hope I will not be required to specify where I obtained this
      information, suffice to say that I believe it to be the case.
      If an existing structure, such as a “Grid pylon” can be utilized
      then be have a “freebee”. Freebeez are beneficial in that they reduce
      pay-back time.
      Getting the energy into the grid is only a problem for people who
      consider themselves to be “electrical engineers”.
      Domestic deployment of wind-energy equipment avoids the huge expense of
      1) “Windfarms” which return – in their entire lifetimes – only a
      fraction of the energy required to replace them
      2) Extensions of the “Grid” to meet them.
      I believe this to be “self-evident” so – however sadly – cannot
      offer any references for you to read-up about it.
      You do make some very valid points though
      I would Love to see some of these figures published, and I suggest
      you work on them to do that.

      > The only real figures that count with energy are:
      > 1. carbon footprints (gCO2/kWh)

      > 2. energy payback ratio – which must be the same thing as
      > 3. financial payback ratio
      – but when I had a loan it was a payback Period, i.e. time.
      As I pointed-out in the letter, 25 years x 200k is about 1/3 of
      the money required to built another. “Payback ratio” of 1/3 ? The
      subsidies must all come from the energy sources which the things
      purport to be replacing. They are “Window-dressing” and nothing more.
      Quite simply
      G. Gilbert Vaughan

        • Paul

          Gilbert said:
          “What is the “Pylon wind towers idea” please?”

          Gilbert said before that:

          “Columns of them can then be suspended from a catenery cable to a suitable high object such as a “power pylon””


          “If you look on homepage, (May 2009)”

          Paul UK.

          I suggest that you read your own comment before questioning replies. You still have not provided references that provide data regarding the costs of materials and whether the costs are relevant to the overall outcome.
          Just writing your own numbers without reference to the information that you rely on, is not sufficient.

          You also mention ‘arithmetic’ and an alleged magical difference between your ideas and other turbines. Yet you don’t give any references to where you get this from and you don’t actually present any ‘arithmetic’ in your comment.

          The energy payback and carbon footprints of wind farms and turbines are well researched:

          Uchiyama 1996
          Kivisto 2000

          White, Scott – Net Energy Payback and CO2 Emissions from Three Midwestern Wind Farms: An Update 2006

          Barbara Batumbya Nalukowe, Jianguo Liu, Wiedmer Damien,Tomasz Lukawski – Life Cycle Assessment of a Wind Turbine 2006

          Gagnon – Civilisation and energy payback 2008

          Motoaki Utamura – Analytical model of carbon dioxide emission with energy payback effect 2004

          Gagnon, Belanger and Uchiyama –
          Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options: the Status of Research 2001.

          Lenzen and Munksgaard,
          Energy and CO2 Analysis of Wind Turbines – Review and Applications.

          Uwe R. Frische – Comparison of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Cost of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective. 2006

          Uchiyama – “Life Cycle Analysis of Photovoltaic Cell and Wind Power Plants.” 1997

            • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

              you simply assume that what I have roughly described is “The Pylon Towers Idea ?” – or something and then go on to critisize – or make comment as though it was that idea. As I say, I don’t know what your “pylon towers idea” or whatever, IS, and so to say that I am some advocate of it is annoying. I haven’t the faintest idea what it is.
              Likewise you say that I refer to “costs of materials” but give no “references”. The fact is that any material costs PER Kilogram and doubling – for example – the size of ANY object, while it increases the area by 2 x 2, it increases the volume by 2 x 2 x 2. This is the second time I have needed to point this out. ?
              I note that you completely ignore the (referenced) data from the public meeting at Llandeilo. Why is that ?
              And also the fact that I provide the – horribly simple – reasons why this data compares so unfavourably to that for a sensible design of TAD.
              Other figures I state are actual measured results, so what exactly is your problem with this ? – before I loose the will to live !

                • Paul UK

                  I didn’t question the issue of the volume material, although you provide no evidence of material use. The issue I raised was about whether the increased materials used on large turbines had any impact at all on the final final figures.
                  All the research suggests it doesn’t. I mean if you accept the research from scientists about climate change, why reject the research about wind turbines?

                  You also do not provide any verifiable figures.
                  What measured results?
                  Where are the references?
                  Your measured results?
                  Whose measured results?

            • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

              “You also mention ‘arithmetic’ and an alleged magical difference between your ideas and other turbines”
              I am glad to say that I fail to find any alegation of magical anything in what I wrote, which is there for anyone to see.
              Neither did I mention any “ideas”. I stated some measured facts regarding the relative performance of a “sensible” (not magical) design of TAD (not “turbine), and that of a “40m diameter 1MW Turbine” i.e. the kind of thing that you, plural, have been instrumental in plastering large swaths of the world in to no-ones benefit – not even your own, ultimately, because it’s making the problem worse, sadly you have to be able to grasp that to spend 153M pounds in order to supply 50M pounds-worth of energy is (about) 100M pounds-worth of CO2 which need not have been released. I guess your “business acumen” prevents this from happening.

                • Paul UK

                  You keep giving figures for alleged financial losses for wind farms. Yet you still do not give any links, any citations or references to who is providing you with this ‘evidence’ of financial loss??

                  I state again, that just quoting some figures plucked from the air doesn’t prove anything.

                  I’ll do the same…

                  “A car costs a million times more to operate than a bus.”
                  There, because i wrote it, it is definitely true!

            • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

              “The energy payback and carbon footprints of wind farms and turbines are well researched”
              Yes – on my last 6quid and litre of diesel I got to Llandeilo in July ’05, where i gathered the data which you choose to ignore.

                • Paul UK

                  Frankly you are wasting peoples time and mine.

                  You quoted ‘alleged’ financial payback, not energy payback times or ratios. Also you haven’t said where you got the figures.

                  Energy payback ratios of wind farms are similar to other energy sources.

                  Wind ranges between 6 and 50
                  Gas between 5 and 26
                  Coal between 7 and 34

                  Basically they all return more energy than what is used to build, install, maintain and dismantle them.

                  Also a public meeting isn’t a citation or a reference to reiliable information.

        • dale Vince

          Hi GGV, here you are again, saying this –

          “The constant revs mode ( of “Modern windfarms”) gives a more or less pro rata relationship i.e. twice the speed gives twice the power (INTO the Alt.) whereas “Constant Pitch” mode (revs vary to suit windspeed) gives a more or less cubic relationship, i.e. if the speed doubles the power put INTO the A becomes 2×2×2 what it was at the lower speed.
          I hope this will dispurse at least some of your current fog
          regarding the science of getting energy from the wind”

          This is just plain untrue. Large scale wind turbines come in both types – fixed speed and variable speed. And although variable speed turbines are more efficient generally (and especially dealing with gusts, which fixed speed machines tend to turn into gearbox torque load spikes) both types of machine harness the cube law. They simply do. Check it out, grab some power curves, you’ll see it for yourself.


    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

      No, it was a public meeting at Llandeilo, not in a hot-air ballon.
      The guy giving the information we had to assume was not lieing – as you appear to be. Where are YOUR measurements coming-from ?
      I have every reason to believe the Llandeilo figures, because of the data from – as I have stated – a sensible design,
      of TAD which compares to the Llandeilo figures in a accountable way – i.e. the fact that your TADs are about 160 times the optimum size of minimum cost per square metre faced, and the fact that they operate in the “constant rev. ” mode which progressively wastes higher winds. These two facts account – very well (had you bothered to read) for the disparity in Payback periods, and “energy ratios” between the sensible design and your window-dressing art for the government while they (quietly) build nuclear to keep-up with France. France also has a huge show of “Wind energy”.
      It can AFFORD it ! (while the nuclear industry lasts).

        • Paul UK

          What guy?
          What is his name and where can his data be accessed?

          Why should anyone assume he is right, if his figures clearly contradict research carried out world wide by engineers and scientists.

        • Paul UK

          Gilbert said:
          “Where are YOUR measurements coming-from ?”

          Paul UK

          I just posted a load of references and a link.
          I suggest you do some reading.

            • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

              “Since when did “engineers and scientists” research into man-made devices ?!
              I guess the guy addressing the gathering was from the electic supply company SWALEC ? they are fairly sure to know how much energy they buy from who during any given year. Are you saying he must have been some kind of stooge from the “anti-windfarm lobby” ? Odd that the figures he gave made perfectly good sense in the light of actual first-hand knowledge. (deeing is believing) and the explanation of the disparity which you still pass over. Sorry if the 2 times table is off-limits for you.
              i.e about 5%p.a readily abd much more on the west coast of Eire, for instance, compared to the small fraction of one percent p.a. indicated by the Llandeilo figures.
              I found some figures for “energy ratios” from the addresses you gave, and just like those stated by they are total fantasy. I know this because I have a TAD which is actually about 50 times as cost-effective, and the return p.a. is as I have stated – a few percent. This represents an “Energy payback ratio” of 5 or 10 in say 100 years – and it could last that long. In case you are a little short on “maths” 5 or 10 divided by 50 gives the fraction of a percent “alledged” by “the Guy”

                • Paul UK

                  I’ll leave you to your crazy world and fantasies.
                  I have better things to do.

                    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

                      It’s you that creates the fantasy-land, which I and everyone-else, must inhabit. You build more Tele-tubby pollution wherever you can.
                      You are evidently unable to process the simple facts which I point-out. Area is Square-measure Volume (what you pay for) is Cubic. You call this crazy ?
                      You should be locked-up before you do any more damage with public money and your outrageous deception.
                      Alternator prices – though they may be crazy – are not fantasy, even if You happen to state that they are. Maybe you have a reference to show that this is “True” ?
                      Then, when simple reason begins to seep through to your closed little mind, you state that “well cost doesn’t affect the “final outcome” anyway ? !!
                      It’s impossible to believe that serious – Government ! money has come your way. You must be very pleased with yourself. Me, I am just pleased to own a device which actually DOES – without any references, just Wind – return during it’s working life several times as much energy as is required to replace it.
                      You are supposed to be interested in Wind Energy and Climate change ? There is only one sort of change on your adgenda, and it’s hardly the “loose” variety !

    • Jonny Holt

      Hello everybody,

      At the risk of clogging up this thread with quite a lot of verbiage, please read this e-mail which has just been forwarded to me. It seems pertinent to the original topic and is one of the most uplifting e-mails I have received in ages.

      If you feel able to help in any way, please do so.

      Best regards,


      ———- Forwarded message ———-
      From: Franny Armstrong
      Date: 2009/11/11
      Subject: [Age-of-Stupid] Rescued by Boris… and you?

      << STOP PRESS. Sold Stupid to the BBC at the weekend. Confirmed they will broadcast before or during Copenhagen. Yahey >>


      Yes it is true, the Mayor of London did rescue me from some feral kids* last week, all the gory details below.

      But on to a rather more serious rescue… looks like Team Stupid will be bankrupt by the end of this week… eek…

      Here’s the fundamental flaw: the money which the film makes from DVDs and TV sales and Indie Screenings and whathaveyou goes into the pot to repay the crowd-funding investors (first payment coming before Xmas, btw). And we don’t have a distributor with a big cheque book cos we didn’t want someone saying no to all the screenings we’ve been doing (just celebrated the 1,000 local screening booked through Indie Screenings website). Which means that all of our audacious plans involving Global Premieres and UN trains and Copenhagen and The Stupid Show and getting saved by Boris (oh no, that was free), have to be funded from some other pot of gold. We’ve been winging it in a variety of ways for the last 18 months, but now the invoice pile is just getting too big and wobbly…

      But fear not, for I have a cunning plan to save the day….

      Why I’m selling my shares in my own film (well, some of them)

      When we set out to make Stupid way back in 2004, the theory was that, rather than getting paid properly, all the 100+ crew members would work for survival wages plus a percentage of profits. That way we’d keep the costs down (cos salaries are by far the biggest chunk of any film) and make a big-budget film (animation, orchestral score etc) for a small pile of cash. And having a percentage of profits meant that, should the film turn out to be a success, all the crew would one day get paid a half-decent wage. From my own perspective, I thought I could cope with living on minimum wage for a few years in exchange for a nice little nest egg to fund a future of lying round swimming pools stroking my Oscars.

      But after five years working on climate change I’ve had a change of heart.

      As has been said and re-said ad infinitum, we are now right at the end of the time when we could still avert a human catastrophe of unimaginable horror. As in there are just 25 days left till Copenhagen, which is our last chance to get the treaty which could bring global emissions down fast enough to avoid triggering runaway climate change, which is where the warming becomes unstoppable and hundreds of millions of people – if not everybody – dies. And as the best deal currently on the Copenhagen table gives us only a 50/50 chance of avoiding this nightmare, it seems to me that the only logical thing to do for anybody who relies on the climate remaining habitable to human life is divert all their available resources into maximising our collective chance of success at Copenhagen.

      Which is why I’ve decided to take my money out of my own future in order to wager it on all of us** having one. Better to be poorer on a habitable planet, than richer amidst utter carnage.

      ** Maybe the three girls who attacked me are the exception – they can have the version of the future where we fail to stop climate change.

      So I am hereby putting 20 of my shares up for sale, worth 5,000 pounds each. Please buy one if you can possibly afford it (details of how it works below or here) or pass on the info to rich-ish pals. If we can raise the full 100k in the next week or so, we will have enough money to both pay off our debts and pull off our killer idea for Copenhagen… which is….

      The Stupid Show

      The Stupid Show is a 20 min daily web TV show, produced by The Age of Stupid crack team, live from the Copenhagen climate summit. Hosted by Mark Lynas (the man in the shed) and Franny Armstrong (yours truly), our mission is to make the talks comprehensible to ordinary mortals. We’ll be doing that by singing updates, interviewing bigwigs in rhyming locations (In Bed With…. On The Floor With…. Smoking Weed With….), drawing abstract concepts Rolf Harris-style for online viewers to win prizes and coordinating daily actions for one’s public to get involved in. Think The Daily Show, but sillier, more interactive and on a way more important subject. All details here.

      Why web TV?

      When I started getting entangled in the McLibel trial, back in the early ’90s, it was clear that the new-fangled thing called the internet would be the ideal way of getting the story out. It’s all totally obvious now, but the fact that it was global, it was free, it was uncensorable by McDonald’s (the whole trial was about Big Mac trying to stop people criticising them) and nobody much had used it for campaigning meant that when we launched the McSpotlight website on February 16th 1996 it immediately caused a media frenzy and became the “blueprint for all protest websites” (Wired magazine).

      (No prizes for guessing who wrote the flowery launch report… “Tears flowed, children giggled, defendants smiled and unfamiliar people hugged each other as the 60-second countdown finished, the familiar logo gently appeared on the screen and everything McDonald’s don’t want us to know became available for the whole world to see.”)

      I feel like we are at a similar moment again with Copenhagen. There could be another step-change in the use of new media for world-changing purposes. Broadband is now sufficiently widespread – and watching video online sufficiently commonplace – that millions of people could watch a daily web TV show…. Just because nobody’s yet managed to make a must-watch show, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible… We’ve got all the elements in place: the high-level contacts, the international fanbase, the skills & team to produce the show, the partners to spread the word and, most important of all, the crucial moment in human history. If we can strike the right balance between humour and history, we may just inspire millions of people all round the world to become actively engaged in the talks.

      All we lack is the cash.

      Please buy a share or a DVD or a tambourine

      Here’s how you can help:
      -> Buy one of my shares – For 5,000 pounds you can join our 350+ crowd-funders and own your very own slice of the Stupid pie. Basically you get paid a percentage of the profits for 10 years, and as the first payment is coming before Xmas, you won’t have long to wait before you start seeing a return. All details about how it works here. Everyone who buys a share at this stage will be buying one of mine, so I’ll chuck in a signed DVD as a little pressie… If you’d like to talk to someone before handing over your cash, please email our money man Andrew Douglas on with your phone number and he’ll give you a call. (Andrew is only available for discussions about shares, he’s not much cop with lovelife difficulties.)
      -> Sponsor the Stupid Show to the tune of 40,000 and we’ll call it “The Stupid Show bought to you by X” on the opening title sequence and all publicity. Or sponsor one of the strands (eg Song of the Day) and you’ll see your name on screen.
      -> Sponsor something from the Stupid Show wedding list – Kazoos, internet connections, bicycle hire, felt tip pens, ferries…. there’s something for every budget and you can have your name in the credits, if you like.
      -> Buy loads of DVDs or T-shirts or water bottles or stickers from our shop. Please buy them from us rather than well-known internet sellers as we get a much bigger chunk of the cash.
      -> Give a donation
      -> Forward the share info / this whole message to any medium rich friends
      -> Forward the Stupid Show wedding list – – via email, Facebook, Twitter etc – to anyone you know with a spare ten quid.

      My Knight On A Shining Bicycle

      When the history of why we failed to act on climate change is written, Boris Johnson beating Ken Livingstone to the job of Mayor of London will get a headline slot. Ken’s team had developed a comprehensive city-wide strategy called “The London Plan” which was going to cut London’s emissions by a whopping actually-tackling-the-problem 60%. Stuff like the congestion charge, low emissions zone and free buses were the first stages of the mega-plan being rolled out. As we were filming Stupid between 2004 and 2008, climate experts were forever telling me that Ken’s plan not only made London the world leader, but was also inspiring other cities to finally start taking climate change seriously.

      Then the stupid people of London voted Ken out because Boris has better hair. As soon as he got into office, Boris dumped most of Ken’s plans, put London back 20 years and pretty much derailed the whole cities-tackling-climate-change train. It really was that significant, imho, as without one city leading the way, the others started floundering again. And with the vast majority of humans living in cities, we are either going to succeed or fail to solve climate change in our cities.

      None of which is to say that I wasn’t extremely pleased to meet Boris for the first time as I was walking home last Monday night. The situation went from shocking (as I was ambling along the road, texting Lizzie, and suddenly got pushed against a car) to funny (when I looked up and saw that my attackers were three small hoodie girls straight out of a cheap BBC drama) to pretty damn frightening (when they started waving their long metal bar around) to utterly bizarre (as Boris Johnson cycled up and shouted some Borisness (not “oiks” as the media likes to say, but something along those lines which I unfortunately can’t remember)) all in the space of about 40 seconds. Ten minutes later – when he’d returned from chasing after them on his bike – we had a good old chat about Copenhagen (yes he’s going), cycle lanes (he thinks they shouldn’t be segregated, as “all the road should be for cyclists”), 10:10 (going to be hard to cut 10% of the tubes’ emissions as there’s no AC) and London’s bike hire scheme starting next year (beautiful blue bikes – so much better looking than Paris’s). Obviously I signed him up to 10:10 and gave him the tag from round my neck as a thank you. F: “You can only have it if you’re definitely going to cut your emissions 10% next year”. B: “I will, I will”.

      Having been wandering the streets of London for 30-odd years without ever either getting mugged or bumping into the Mayor, for both to happen at the same time was…

      …. the best thing that could’ve happened for breaking 10:10 out of Guardianland. The 10:10 crew wouldn’t countenance my suggestion that we keep the whole thing quiet on account of being utterly sick of my ugly mug in the media, so they put the story out at 4pm the next day and when I popped home at 5.30 there were already notes from journalists stuck through my door. How the F do they get someone’s home address so quickly?!? I headed off to the Grierson Awards (where we didn’t win, but the Yes Men did, hooray) and came out three hours later to find 41 voicemails, 24 texts and 100+ journo emails – plus messages from everyone I’ve ever worked with and even family members who’d been called by the Daily Mail. By the time I got home, the papparazzi were camping outside my house (well, they were sitting in their people carriers fiddling with their laptops), which was about 100 times more scary than the hoodie girl gang.

      Friends in Dubai, then Beijing, then Sydney, then Auckland texted over the next few days as the story spread round the world. Boris’s heroics made it into Time magazine to the main BBC news to satires like this and this to cartoons in tabloids to discussions on the Today prog to 300 comments in the Daily Mail to a discussion on Have I Got News For You. Think this is my favourite, though funny to read that I said “Oh mein Gott, es ist Boris Johnson”. Didn’t think my German was that good. Oh and does anyone have copies of the cartoons which were printed in various papers? Would love to see them. Or the animation that was apparently on the ITV news?

      So anyhow, I can confirm that Boris does indeed have fantastic hair and a great knack with a soundbite – “It’s a slight mitigation of my heroism that the assailants turned out to be 12-year-old girls”. As to whether I’ll be voting for him next time – as all the press keep asking – the answer is: Boris for SuperHero, Ken for Mayor.

      Hope you can help with the money thing,
      The Damsel and her Comrades In Distress

      PS. As Ed Miliband pins his colours to the nuclear masts, Spain gets 53% of its electricity from wind.

      * Quite a few people wrote saying that I shouldn’t have used the phrase “feral kids”. Yeah, I agree, it wasn’t really strong enough to describe small children who go around attacking people, was it?

        • Jonny Holt

          For some reason I managed to leave out the most uplifting bit from the original e-mail. Here it is (it should have been at the top between the <<>>)


          *fixed that for you Jonny (strange one – must have been the <<>> messing with the text somehow…. Paul

    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

      “Spain gets 53% of its electricity from wind” but only in our dreams, I fear.
      The “design” – for want of a word – of “Modern windfarms” is so outrageously out of touch with physical reality that they are about 1/50 – without chewing irrelevance – as useful as a sensible design can ACTUALLY BE. There are two major reasons for this (By”useful” I mean how long they take to supply the energy required to make another. ) Note that theee is never any mention of an Alternator in the jargon surrounding “windfarms”.
      1) A Turbine -Alternator Device – TADs – as I call them, has an unusual “economy of size”. It is a necklace-shaped function of (log) SIZE. This is brought-about by the fact that Ts have opposite “economy of size” to As. E.g. Doubling the size of the T to replace 4, requires 8 times the weight of materials. The cost/m^2 of wind faced therefore doubles by doubling the size. The One big A, meanwhile weighs-in at Half the price of the 4 which it stands-in for (in my experience).
      The lowest cost ocurrs for sizes where the T costs about the same as the A. 1 Wad each, say. If we consider successive doublings of size to replace 4 previous, then the Total cost of the “farm” becomes
      2 2.5 4.25 8.125 etc.
      Of course the same applies for halving the size successively, but this way it’s the A-bill which “sky-rockets”
      It turns-out, that this “size of best economy” is around a metre diameter – probably just under, but little change happens around that size as we can see. It needs only to be “about” – not 64 times !!
      If you add this fact to this
      2) Operating a TAD at “constant revs” progressively wastes higher winds, producing a “power taken from wind” (Watts v Wind) characteristic which is pretty-much “pro-rata”, i.e. it takes twice the power from twice the wind-speed.
      Whereas, operating at “constant pitch-angle” (of the wings to the wind), and arranging for the revs to vary to fit the prevailing windspeed, produces a pretty-much “Cubic” Power taken v Windspeed” characteristic. E.g. if the wind doubles, the power taken from it 2x2x2s or 8 time’s.
      These two facts account, very well, for the disparity between what is achievable (c5% readily) with the figures quoted by the speaker at a public meeting in Llandeilo in July ’05.
      Cost of proposed farm ————————- 153M
      Annual return from energy it supplies —– 000.2M
      i.e. a small fraction of One percent. This is completely un-sustainable, it must be said, without constant input from the energy sources it purports to be replacing. It is simply a way of supplying 0.2 x 25 years life, or 50 M pounds of energy for an expenditure of 153M pounds of energy (and CO2). But it is molifying lots of people who have a right to be very angry, and making sundry tossers quite well-off.
      I believe the above is Arithametic, if you look, rather than someone or other’s opinion. So now you really have a subject, it’s such a pity that you made your film already !

        • paul

          Gerard – where can we see one of these TAD systems running? I can’t find anything about them when I do a google search – all I can find is your blog comments.


        • Jonny Holt

          Hello Gerard,

          Your posts are starting to provide some of us with more amusement than is healthy.

          I am prepared to accept the possibility that you might have a worthwhile business case in your TAD idea. However, at present I balance that possibility against the much higher probability that you don’t – given the mass of evidence that seems to favour the overall efficiency and cost effectiveness of current turbine design. Improvements can and will be made to these designs in the future; the technology is in its infancy and there is undoubtedly scope for further innovation. New directions should also be encouraged, for all our benefit.

          Nevertheless, at the risk of appearing almost as patronising as you, please take the following advice on board if you want to be taken seriously.

          Make your case using clear, concise language. Use short sentences with a minimum of subordinate clauses, over-enthusiastic punctuation, irregular capitalisation and typographical errors. This will help others to concentrate on the argument you are trying to make – rather than getting distracted by the unique literary style.

          Provide evidence, with verifiable sources, showing the TAD principle working. Demonstrate the returns and efficiencies that can reasonably be expected, using established accounting methods if possible. Again, these need to be verifiable. They can then be compared to the performance characteristics of existing wind energy generating infrastructure on a dispassionate and objective basis.

          Do not damage your credibility by misrepresenting or belittling the technical competence of other contributors.

          I sincerely hope you accept this criticism in the constructive spirit in which I offer it.

          Best regards,


            • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

              I am sorry if primary school arithametic is still beyond your mental capacity.
              I would like to see the “evidence” that current “turbine design” (with or without alternator?) is “very efficient”, because primary school arithametic, the figures quoted at the public meeting in Llandeilo, and actual results being obtained currently, suggest that it is, infact, about 1/50 as cost-effective as is achievable by a sensible design. This puts it into the “completely un self-sustaining” category. i.e. it does not manage to provide enuf energy during its working life to enable a replacement to be made. It is window dressing and a further strain on the environment.
              It is sustained by promises, and lies, and governments which need to look to be doing something about CO2 emissions. If they can burn enuf oil to build enuf of them quick-enuf, then – discounting all that CO2 – their “green targets” may be reachable. – Until the things all need replacing having not supplied the energy required to do so.
              I am under no obligation to diclose any of the working principles of my design to people who currently ignore the “times tables”. Suffice to say that no physical principles are required to be “broken” in order to achieve what this piece of machinery does.

                • Xena

                  I’m afraid insulting people isn’t really the way to go to be heard, and as Johnny has stated, you risk damaging any credibility by doing so.
                  I myself am educated in mathematics to A-Level standard, and I’m having trouble following your posts, which don’t seem to be very clear at all.

                    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

                      Hello Xena,
                      Since when has “Areas and Volumes” and “The times tables” required A-level maths qualification in order to “follow”? It was rather a long time ago that I was at school and college, but I can’t believe that Tony Blair’s “Education programme” has come to this. Can you please point-out where I am “insulting people” ?

            • Paul

              For Jonny and Paul:

              Based on another post that ‘bert’ has left on this blog.
              I found this page about PowerTreeEooD which appears to be Mr Vaughans only presence on the net:


              It has a very tiny picture in the top right. Looks like a beer barrel.

                • Paul UK

                  Yes, well.
                  Mr Vaughn has hastily replaced the tiny photo of his beer barrel device and replaced it with a tiny photo of the house.

                    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

                      Really ! Oh wow, I must look !~

                • Paul UK

                  Mr Vaughan has also edited out some basic technical data from his page. It did say that he got about 100watts from a 11m/s wind.

                    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

                      It states quite clearly in the letter above “about 380 kW from an 11 m/s wind” This is based upon the 100+ watts which he observed into two light-bulbs in April ’06. 150volts dc, 0.7 amp.

                • Xena

                  Firstly, Mr Vaughan, you’re quite clearly stating that primary school arithmetic (note the correct spelling) is beyond our mental capacity.
                  Secondly, my point was that if someone whobeen educated to a standard well beyond primary school level is still having trouble following your poorly structured posts, then you perhaps need to work on making things clearer.

                    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

                      Oh I think it is quite clear, Ms.. whobeen, and wouldn’t hold that against anyone.
                      Not wishing to change the subject – unlike you people – but it’s one thing knowing the correct spelling of a word, but what is the point of that if you do not know its meaning ?
                      Just for you, I shall try once more.
                      Volume of materials is what you pay for- ok ? ttell me if I’m going too fast.
                      Area of weather faced is what you actually require – yes ?
                      if the Size of a thing is changed by some factor. Twice, say, – a factor of 2 ? – then Volume of the thing will change by Factor x factor x factor, in this example that would be 2 x 2 x 2, which I believe you will find comes to 8 if you do your best.
                      Meanwhile, the Area of weather made use of will change by
                      factor x factor, or, in this example, 2 x 2, which – with A-level – you should be able to decide on your own what that is. I make it 4, but I may need a “booster course”, of course.
                      If my theory that it comes to 2 is correct, then the cost per square metre of weather faced is doubled by doubling the size of a wind turbine.
                      So as not to overstretch your A-level capabilitiesw and give your poor brain a chance to cool-down – chill out – I shal leave the Alternator cost out untill you are ready, which at this rate will be sometime after the end of the world. Sorry I’m a “megga-genius”, it used to be called primary school “maths”

                    • Paul UK

                      Gerard said: “If my theory that it comes to 2 is correct, then the cost per square metre of weather faced is doubled by doubling the size of a wind turbine.”

                      Double the diameter of the blades and you increase the output about 4 times. Meanwhile the tower height is not required to match the increased diameter (or swept area), it can be increased in size to meet the increased radius, not diameter.
                      eg. the worst case scenario is that the carbon footprint (gCO2/kWh) remains the same, or it is improved.

                      Power = 0.5 x Betz Factor x Swept Area x Air Density x Velocity cubed

                      Examples of two Enercon turbines…
                      The E33 with a 33.4m diameter blades, tower height a minimum of 37m. Lets increase the size to the E 82 with a blade dia of 82m. Using your logic then because the swept area of the E82 is about 6 times greater, the tower needs to be 6 times bigger! eg. about 222 metres

                      But the hub height of the E82 is a minimum of only 78m, because the height (and materials used) is a function of the radius of the blades, not the swept area.

                      The materials used are based on design and the locality of the turbine, not on silly layman’s arithmetic.

                    • Paul UK

                      My post above is a reply to Gerard, not Xena.

            • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

              “Do not damage your credibility by misrepresenting or belittling the technical competence of other contributors”

              It isn’t MY credibility that is at stake, neither have I misrepresented any other “contributor”, and, as usual would ask for direction to any such misdemeanour. If you cannot provide that, then in fact it is you who are doing the “misrepresenting”
              But, as usual, – and oddly like my own brother – you manage to shift the light away from what I was pointing-to. Well I shall shift it back !
              I am pointing to the fact that the the lowest cost for a windfarm is achieved by using TADs of a size where the T costs about the same as the A. This happens at around a metre diameter. I have explained, very simply, why this is.
              I have also pointed-out that the two modes of operation – Constant pitch – revs to suit wind
              Constant Revs – pitch varied to suit the wind
              give quite different “Power-taken v windspeed”

              Since “modern windfarms” operate in the former mode, they progressively waste the higher winds.
              The above two considerations account, very nicely, for the disparity in return p.a. of cost – (energy) – between “modern windfarms”, and what can be obtained from a very sensible TAD design, of about the “best size”

                • Xena

                  Yes Gerard I do understand that 2×2=4, and I also understand that you’re seriously condescending and unfortunately, it puts me off reading your ridiculous posts any further. Am I going to fast for you here?

                    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

                      I started by pointing-out some very simple facts which you said you were unable to see, or understand ? clearly ?
                      Please don’t mistake exageration for condescention, as I have in no way been condescending. On the contrary, it is you who tells me that you are well qualified and that I must improve to be able to able to communicate ?
                      It’s a hard life, but ignoring – or pretending that we cannot see – plain simple truths, only makes it harder.
                      So how “ridiculous” is that ?
                      And would you please tell Paul that I have never – neither deliberately nor accidently, inferred or stated anything to the effect that “the tower height must increase in proportion to the swept area”, as he says that I have in a recent comment just above. If it turns-out that I have said such a stupid thing then I will know that I really need a break. If I haven’t then he needs to mend his ways.

                • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

                  This is intended for Paul

                  It’s not “The materials used” that I am talking about. It is the QUANTITY of materials used !! This will be 8 times for a turbine of twice the diameter – no matter how f**** stupid and Lay you may be !

                  *Edited to remove strong language – Gerard – you have been warned several times! You will find it difficult to post anything on here now. Paul – Blog Manager

                    • Xena

                      Excuse me Gerard? Your language shouldn’t be tolerated on here and I find it disgusting.

                      You really can’t see that you’re being rude, and insulting?

                      And I think Dale’s recent posts have clarified for everyone that your proposals and claims are incorrect.

                      I think you should give up now.

    • Paul UK

      I’m guessing Vaughans ‘invention’ is basically a ducted fan/shrouded wind turbine mounted on a tower structure. A number of them could be mounted on the tower.
      I assume he is using the Bulgarian country home to work on his ‘plan’.

      It doesn’t seem particularly unique, there are many shrouded turbine project ideas around. Sure they have potential, but whining about Ecotricity and the current generation of turbines isn’t going to do mr Vaughan any favours. Maybe he has got funding problems and feels that attacking the ‘competition’ helps?

      Although not a true ducted fan system, I like the Honeywell turbine which has the generator elements on the rim of device.

        • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

          Dear Sarg,
          Do you think that anyone is really interested in your “assumption”, and can you illucidate a little on what “his plan” might be ?
          Maybe I need to explain that the purpose of a “TAD” is to supply far more energy during its life, than is required to make another – not to “look unique” – or “look” anything in particular. If it was invisible that would be 100% perfect “look”.
          The “Bulgarian country house” as you refer to the ruin that I am trying to restore and give some kind of sustainability, while you slop-about on government funding – feeling jealous of those working for a living – belongs to the Bulgarian company “Powertree EooD”

    • John House

      How about a change of subject.
      The BBC laughed at a swiss man at the Bali climate change conference when he suggested a solar collector in the sahara could provide up to 15% of Europes total energy requirements.
      A consortium of German enginering companies have just signed up to building it. check out Note German companies not English, why is this country so scared of change.
      The tidal generator designed & built in Clevedon, sold to the Portuguese but no interest at home.
      Hydrogen cars ( not fuel cell) 5 Ford Focus cars driving round Coventry running on hydrogen, refuelled at home from an electrolysing stack that takes solar, wind or green mains.
      Peugot 206 running on 90% water 10% fat, oil or hydrocarbon driving round Somerset.
      Change of government won’t change the way this country does things, oil & coal still rule the money markets.
      Personal note to Dale, keep going bloke the more the merrier, your turbine at Shooters bottom looks lonely, another 15 would make it look like a proper job.
      Whole earth show in 1992 (1st wind powered radio 4 broadcast) and glastonbury there after, I was the one burning diesel in gensets.

        • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

          Dear John,
          Much as I would love to share in your enthusiasm regarding the desert solar-electric, my natural enthusiaem is dampened somewhat when I add the cost (energy, CO2 required) of the “cable” from this collosal installation.
          i.e. how long will it take for said installation to provide enuf energy to make another. No-one ever poses this question which, untill someone can show me otherwise, is the prime and only consideration regading any energy supplying installation aimed at being “zero-carbon”. We have to bear in mind, that until this time has elapsed, the installation’s “carbon footprint” is still fading.
          By the way, the carbon footprint of current “wind farms” never Ever (Ever) actually diss-appears since, during their entire life, they do not supply as much energy as is required to replace them !! This is the shocking truth.
          Your friends here dispute this and the figures I have published from a public meeting in Llandeilo in July ’05, which I have no reason to disbelieve in the light of some simple facts which I point-to in various comments on this page, and actual results from a system which takes into account these facts, and is accordingly very different both visually and of course physically.

    • guy blanch

      Hi there

      I appreciate all forms of harnessing wind energy – Large or small scale.

      I can also appreciate the beauty of some nearby large trees (Uley), which is very fortunate … but with regard to my plans for a small turbine (not a TAD !!??!!!) and the reduction in windspeed …. this is very unfortunate.

      And the relevance of this comment to the Copenhagen thread is nil … however I would like to say good luck to Isabelle and any one else who makes the trip ..

      I’ve never written anything before on a blog, I’m only doing it because a good friend suggested it might be a way of communicating with you ~ Dale ….

      I suppose I could send my CV to Ecotricity – but it’s too late in the evening for formality and you give the impression of being someone who prefers a more relaxed discussion ?

      Anyway – I’m in the process of setting up a local independent research facility, focusing on waste / recycling technology & alternative energies. I would also like to incorporate this with a technical training school (mostly for youngsters – from around the stroud valley area).

      I don’t know if you can help directly, but maybe you know someone that can ??

      In reference to ongoing Stinchcombe job – I would love to see some noise / sound level data that comes from that lovely stretch of M5 motorway ?? How can anyone complain of potential turbine noise with six lanes of her majesty’s finest tarmac – in close proximity ….. being pounded upon ??

      Go easy on me GGv

        • paul

          Hiya Guy,

          I spoke to Dale about this (and your other comment) – he thinks it is a great idea and well worth doing – he racked his brains but couldn’t think of anyone who might be able to offer solid help in the local area. Sorry for not getting back sooner, I have been mulling it over too much…

          I suppose you have already been in touch with the local groups such as Transition Stroud, Stroud Valleys Project, Social Enterprise Centre, Stroud Commonwealth and their Communiversity, or Vision21? Might be something useful in there if not.

          I also met with a nice bloke called Ian Gough who set up Green Education, and does a fair amount of education based work in the Reading area (including tours of the turbine at Green Park). Sounds like you two might have a few things in common.

          Will drop you a mail if I think of anything further…


            • guy blanch

              Hi Paul

              Thanks for the info – I’ll chase them all up ..

              PS. Let me know if you need someone to hold the sound meter !

              thanks guy

    • Jonny Holt

      Hello Gerard,

      You have made a claim which – if true – could turn the wind industry as it is now on its head. Understandably, all those who are interested in these things want to know more. Given these facts I fail to see how your credibility could not be at stake. All we ask is that you explain your position clearly. So far, you have not shown yourself able to do so.

      You ask for examples of your misrepresenting or belittling other contributors. Here we go …
      November 8, 2009 at 10:09 am “To dismiss the fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased … … simply shows that you are more of a fool than merely an optimist.”
      November 8, 2009 at 5:04 pm “Dale+ Co. have a pathological aversion to simple facts, prefering to stay cocooned in their plastic techno-world of jargon that we all need to read-up on to be able to speak to their highnesses.”
      November 8, 2009 at 4:45 pm “It’s seldom that anyone manages to become senile in their 40’s ? Congratulations !”
      November 9, 2009 at 8:48 pm “You are evidently unable to process the simple facts which I point-out.”
      November 9, 2009 at 8:48 pm “You should be locked-up before you do any more damage with public money and your outrageous deception.”
      November 12, 2009 at 9:41 am “But it is … … making sundry tossers quite well-off.
      I believe the above is Arithametic, if you look, rather than someone or other’s opinion. So now you really have a subject, it’s such a pity that you made your film already !”
      November 13, 2009 at 9:31 am “I am sorry if primary school arithametic is still beyond your mental capacity.”

      I do not know your brother but I imagine he is probably quite a nice bloke.

      I have searched the internet in vain for any reference to this elusively recorded public meeting at Llandeilo and the figures you quote other than your own assertions. Your repeated referral to this event seems to be the foundation of your argument regarding the relative costs – both financial and environmental – of conventional wind power generation versus your claims for the TAD.

      Who gave these figures at the meeting? Were the figures from a trustworthy source or mere hearsay? Do they conform to the performance profiles from similar sites? Are there particular local circumstances that need to be taken into account? Are there other factors that were not included in the calculation that should be given consideration? Until these questions are answered it is not possible to judge the worth of your counterproposal.

      Please can you supply other references so that the rest of us can verify your claims? The figures you give for Llandeilo are surprisingly far adrift of the norm for this type of venture. (For comparison, the British Wind Energy Association quote between 2 and 10 months as the time taken for a modern wind turbine to repay the energy investment that has been made in its manufacture. A typical machine nowadays could be rated at 2MW capacity, would operate at a load factor of 30% and would at least be eligible for ROC income of 4.5p / kWh. You are the one with the arithmetical ability, so I am sure you can work out the financial case in its favour.)

      I am equally uncertain of the logic you infer regarding the efficiency increases available from a reduction in size. While every mechanical system in conventional physics has its optimum scale for most efficient working, it is rare for economies of scale to be reversed as you seem to claim. My own knowledge of industrial manufacture and design engineering encourages me towards scepticism. Again, I qualify my understanding of your position as I have difficulty in negotiating my way through your innovative use of grammar and spelling.

      Please answer these questions. Even though the chances seem to be receding with every post, if you are onto something it could be to the benefit of all of us on this planet.

      Best regards,


        • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

          What “claims” ? Why don’t you be specific ? What “claims” would you like me to “verify”. Tell me and I will attempt to put the requisite info in front of you – once more.
          Regarding the “wind (energy? ) industry being “turned on its head” that would be yet further waste of Energy. It simply needs closing-down in its current harmful form.

    • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

      Oh Hi Sarg.

      So how long is it before your “blades” – which need to be wings to do anything At All – are digging into the dirt ?
      If the diameter is doubled then the tower height must quite obviously be doubled as well.
      Secondly, and as I have pointed-out so many times by now, since your ‘turbines” operate in “Constant revs” mode, the power taken-in by them is pretty-much pro-rata with windspeed. The Cubic relationship which you quote, applies to a “Constant pitch” (Revs to suit wind) mode of operation.
      Allthough I don’t expect every “feral kid” in the street to be aware of this, I would expect anyone receiving serious sums of public money exactly for this kind of knowledge – to have it.
      So if you feel “belittled”, that really isn’t my doing.
      I didn’t see the point of reading carefully the rest of your essay. I have enough to keep me occupied. But keep polishing-up the “interpersonal skill”, allthough you are undoubtedly doing vastly better than me, as it is ! I just make make wind-energy equipment which shows a sustainable return. I also give-away the reasons why this is. If this “rubs you up the wrong way”, it isn’t my problem.

        • Paul UK

          Gerard, I haven’t got a clue about who you are referring to. I personally have never met Dale and I don’t work in the wind energy industry.

          I think your credibility is greatly undermined by the way you conduct yourself and when someone says:

          “If the diameter is doubled then the tower height must quite obviously be doubled as well.”

          Anything that they might say about their own alleged invention must questionable. When the diameter of turbine blades are doubled, the radius is increased by 50% not 100%.
          The increased diameter is shared by the blades because the hub is at the centre.
          The tower height thus needs to increase in height by 50% or so, hence the materials used on the tower are not doubled.

          If the radius is doubled, then sure the tower height would increase by the same amount, but then the swept area would be greater as well.

            • Paul UK

              Apologies to Gerard,

              My brain is fried, you are correct about the diameter. Not sure where my brain was going with that.

        • dale Vince

          Hi GGV – wrong on two fronts – you say –

          “and as I have pointed-out so many times by now, since your ‘turbines” operate in “Constant revs” mode, the power taken-in by them is pretty-much pro-rata with windspeed. The Cubic relationship which you quote, applies to a “Constant pitch” (Revs to suit wind) mode of operation.”

          Our turbines are actually variable speed (and variable pitch) and as I’ve posted earlier tonight twice already – these turbines and the fixed speed turbines (that also typically have variable pitch) both harness the cube law.

          Your grasp of what we build and how it works is simply not up to scratch – leading to the question – is anything else you say?


    • John House

      Mr Vaughan
      So you make wind energy equipment, instead of wasting your time and energy on blogging, box one of your devices up and send it over, I’m sure if it is as good as you say it is the orders will follow and the argument won!

        • Gerard Gilbert Vaughan

          Yes hooray – you got the message ! you understood ! well, half of it any way, so there is SOME hope ! I make wind energy equipment. The other half of the message was, if my memory isn’t playing tricks – “that is self-sustaining”. And I quite agree that there is far too much to do to be “blogging” any further. This has gone beyond “blog” and into arithmetic. My mistake.
          I thought arithmetic was used when doing “Energy” things, money, work, stuff like that. Are you familiar with any of that ? Not that I really want to know.
          Anyway, I am sure you will be able to keep it all under your hat ok. So long as it isn’t on your head at the time, of course !.

            • Alexandra Deegan

              Already it seems that the COP-15 ideals…. is falling apart….


              It seemples….

              If you want a safe future for you an your kids…. get off yer ar#se and start building a modern day, self-sustainable ark…

              The govt and it’s officially appointed helpers will not be cavalry like riding atop the horizon to help you, not now…nit never.

              It will be bumpy ride kids…. but for those that can do (not waffle)….the future can still be bright and fulfilling….

              Live well….all of you.

    • Adrian Lawton

      Wow, this discussion got so far off the original impulse and the hopes for Isabelle to have some effect at Copenhagen! Dale, how about having another go with a new sub-title and hope people don’t sabotage this important focus: The UN Copenhagen meeting. How about:

      How can we encourage the Copenhagen deal to be effective between now and the Summit (wherever you are in the World)?

      Adi Lawton

        • paul

          Hiya Adi,

          Thanks for dropping by. You are totally right – this post was absolutely steered off-topic.

          We just met with Isabelle again today, and I’m pleased to say there will be a new focus on it and lots of new posts from Isabelle and COP15. News will be appearing here next week some time.


    • Justin Noe

      Looks like the talks are falling apart and no one can agree on anything! For what it’s worth I would’ve thought the solution was simple: All countries over an agreed GDP who do not meet targets set out by the IPCC by 2020 should pay for IMF agreed climate change mitigation! That way there would be a rush to hit targets and drive up green tech competition which is what we need. There too much focus on the who’s to blame.
      How sad that this will take another year to resolve itself.