The Extremely Costly and Total Madness of Large Scale Wind Power

I have written extensively about the economical and environmental madness of wind power on a large scale. Wind power can be excellent on a small scale IF you live in the right areas.

See for example my post Record cold and snow in November – Wind Power at 12% output where you can find a lot of links to different post on the subject

They really want us back to the Stone Age to “reduce” our “carbon footprint”.

And how long do you think the people and the modern societies would survive WITHOUT electricity? And what kind of life that would be?

What they are really advocating is huge price increases in the cost of energy, meaning the cost of everything.

That’s it. That’s their plan.

Anything else they say is a lie.

This is a scam to enrich the corrupt.

Just the latest example of this is this quote from Steve Holliday, chief executive of the National Grid (UK) from The Daily Telegraph, 2nd March 2011:

‘Era of constant electricity at home is ending, says power chief.

Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable. Families will have to get used to only using power when it was available, rather than constantly.”

What a brilliant future the Global Warming Hysterics have in store for humankind. And remember they have publicly said and written that they would like to halve, or even cut in two thirds, the world population. Well, wind power is on way of getting about it.

These people are so caring are they not? And they REALLY love humankind.

Here are just a few examples around the world of the growing realisation of the huge cost and unreliability of wind/solar power:

For Every Green Job, Four Other are Lost (UK)

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2011/03/02/for-every-green-job-four-other-are-lost-uk/

“The economic candle in the U.K. is being blown out by wind power. The Verso study finds that after the annual diversion of some 330 million British pounds from the rest of the U.K. economy, the result has been the destruction of 3.7 jobs for every “green” job created.

The study concludes that the “policy to promote renewable energy in the U.K. has an opportunity cost of 10,000 direct jobs in 2009-10 and 1,200 jobs in Scotland.” So British taxpayers, as is the case here in the U.S., are being forced to subsidize a net loss of jobs in a struggling economy.

“There’s a big emphasis in Scotland on the economic opportunity of investing in renewable energy,” says study co-author and Verso research director Richard Walsh. “Whatever the environmental merits, we have shown that the case for green jobs just doesn’t stack up.”

Again, it’s been shown that wind energy can’t hold a candle to other more traditional and more reliable forms of energy.

The Scottish renewable sector is very reliant on subsidies from the rest of the U.K.,” co-author Tom Miers adds. “Without the U.K.-wide framework, it would be very difficult to sustain the main policy tolls to promote this industry.”

As here, only continuous subsidies and redistribution of resources to an unproductive and uncompetitive source of energy keeps the alternative energy industry alive, politically and economically.”

“Calzada noted that these are direct job losses. “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to high energy prices,” he said in an interview.”

Blow-jobs drive unemployment

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/03/blow-jobs-drive-unemployment.html

“The study concludes that the ”policy to promote renewable energy in the UK has an opportunity cost of 10,000 direct jobs in 2009-10 and 1,200 jobs in Scotland”. So British taxpayers, as is the case in the US, are being forced to subsidise a net loss of jobs in a struggling economy.

I suppose it could be worse, though … they could be building electric vans.”

The real cost of ‘global warming’

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100078040/the-real-cost-of-global-warming/

“The renewable energy industry is helping to destroy the UK economy and drive up unemployment says a new report. For every one of David Cameron’s “green jobs” created in the renewable energy sector (mainly solar and wind), another 3.7 jobs are being lost in the real economy, says the independent study by Verso Economics. In total, measurable policies to promote renewable energy cost £1.4 billion in the UK and £168 million in Scotland in 2009/10. But this doesn’t take into account the additional economic damage inflicted by the erection of enormous, bird-chopping monstrosities all over some of Britain’s most attractive tourist spots – including, for example, the hitherto unspoilt island of Tiree.(H/T Michael Daly).”

Why the £250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age – and here are the three ‘lies’ that prove it

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html

“Scarcely a day goes by without more evidence to show why the Government’s obsession with wind turbines, now at the centre of our national energy policy, is one of the greatest political blunders of our time.

Under a target agreed with the EU, Britain is committed within ten years — at astronomic expense — to generating nearly a third of its electricity from renewable sources, mainly through building thousands more wind turbines.

But the penny is finally dropping for almost everyone — except our politicians — that to rely on windmills to keep our lights on is a colossal and very dangerous act of self-deception.

Take, for example, the 350ft monstrosity familiar to millions of motorists who drive past as it sluggishly revolves above the M4 outside Reading.

This wind turbine performed so poorly (working at only 15 per cent of its capacity) that the £130,000 government subsidy given to its owners was more than the £100,000 worth of electricity it produced last year.

Meanwhile, official figures have confirmed that during those freezing, windless weeks around Christmas, when electricity demand was at record levels, the contribution made by Britain’s 3,500 turbines was minuscule.

To keep our homes warm we were having to import vast amounts of power from nuclear reactors in France.

Wind turbines are so expensive that Holland recently became the first country in Europe to abandon its EU renewable energy target, announcing that it is to slash its annual subsidy by billions of euros.

So unpopular are wind turbines that our own Government has just offered ‘bribes’ to local communities, in the form of lower council tax and electricity bills.

“So riddled with environmental hypocrisy is the lobbying for wind energy that a recent newspaper report exposed the immense human and ecological catastrophe being inflicted on northern China by the extraction of the rare earth minerals needed to make the giant magnets that every turbine in the West uses to generate its power.”

“The first is the pretence that turbines are anything other than ludicrously inefficient.

The most glaring dishonesty peddled by the wind industry — and echoed by gullible politicians — is vastly to exaggerate the output of turbines by deliberately talking about them only in terms of their ‘capacity’, as if this was what they actually produce. Rather, it is the total amount of power they have the capability of producing.

The point about wind, of course, is that it is constantly varying in speed, so that the output of turbines averages out at barely a quarter of their capacity.

This means that the 1,000 megawatts all those 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average into the grid is derisory: no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station.

Furthermore, as they increase in number (the Government wants to see 10,000 more in the next few years) it will, quite farcically, become necessary to build a dozen or more gas-fired power stations, running all the time and emitting CO2, simply to provide instant back-up for when the wind drops.”

“The second great lie about wind power is the pretence that it is not a preposterously expensive way to produce electricity. No one would dream of building wind turbines unless they were guaranteed a huge government subsidy.

This comes in the form of the Renewables Obligation Certificate subsidy scheme, paid for through household bills, whereby owners of wind turbines earn an additional £49 for every ‘megawatt hour’ they produce, and twice that sum for offshore turbines.

This is why so many people are now realising that the wind bonanza — almost entirely dominated in Britain by French, German, Spanish and other foreign-owned firms — is one of the greatest scams of our age.

The third great lie is that this industry is somehow making a vital contribution to ‘saving the planet’ by cutting our emissions of CO2 – it is not What other industry gets a public subsidy equivalent to 100 or even 200 per cent of the value of what it produces?

We may not be aware of just how much we are pouring into the pockets of the wind developers, because our bills hide this from us — but as ever more turbines are built, this could soon be adding hundreds of pounds a year to our bills.

When a Swedish firm recently opened what is now the world’s largest offshore windfarm off the coast of Kent, at a cost of £800million, we were told that its ‘capacity’ was 300 megawatts, enough to provide ‘green’ power for tens of thousands of homes.

What we were not told was that its actual output will average only a mere 80 megawatts, a tenth of that supplied by a gas-fired power station — for which we will all be paying a subsidy of £60million a year, or £1.5billion over the 25-year lifespan of the turbines.”

“Then, of course, the construction of the turbines generates enormous CO2 emissions as a result of the mining and smelting of the metals used, the carbon-intensive cement needed for their huge concrete foundations, the building of miles of road often needed to move them to the site, and the releasing of immense quantities of CO2 locked up in the peat bogs where many turbines are built.”

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond reveals his ignorance of wind power

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8363643/Transport-Secretary-Philip-Hammond-reveals-his-ignorance-of-wind-power.html

“The fact is that no one would dream of building these absurdly inefficient machines unless they were guaranteed a 100 per cent subsidy through the Renewables Obligation. This forces electricity companies to buy the power produced by onshore wind at twice the market rate, paid by all of us through our electricity bills. In the case of the offshore turbines that the Government is so keen on, this subsidy is doubled to 200 per cent.”

Solar ‘Gold Rush’ in U.K. May Die With Incentive Roll-Back

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/solar-gold-rush-in-u-k-may-die-with-fastest-roll-back-of-incentives.html

Britain is moving faster than any other European country to contain a surge in solar power and prevent the boom-and-bust seen in Spain and predicted for the Czech Republic. The risk is scaring off the investors who would create the “green jobs” Prime Minister David Cameron is seeking to revive the economy.

It’s going to completely kill the market,” said Tim German, renewable energy manager for the local government in Cornwall at the U.K.’s southwest tip. “Investors are starting to get cold feet.”

The Dutch lose faith in windmills

http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/index.php?id=2656

“The new Dutch right-wing government has announced a radical overhaul of Dutch energy policy. It is cutting subsidies for most forms of renewable energy drastically, and is even putting an end to all subsidies for offshore wind, solar power and largescale biomass. It has also announced a warm welcome for new nuclear power stations – the first time a Dutch government has done so since the Chernobyl-disaster in 1986.”

The Dutch lose faith in windmills

http://energiaadebate.com/the-dutch-lose-faith-in-windmills/

“It was probably the huge subsidy allocated to a 600 MW offshore wind park by the previous government that induced the new Dutch cabinet to make some drastic changes in the existing subsidy scheme for renewable energy. In May 2010, the previous government announced that the German wind power developer Bard Engineering will receive a whopping (maximum) subsidy of €4.5 billion from the Dutch taxpayer to build two 300 MW offshore wind parks off the country’s northern coast. The new right-wing government, a coalition of the liberal party VVD and the Christian-Democrats CDA, supported by the anti-islam party PVV, decided they would not make the same mistake. During the election campaign, the new Prime Minister, Mark Rutte of the Liberals, had been cynical about the large government support for wind power. ‘Windmills turn on subsidies’, he had said.

Thus, when on 30 November, the new Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, heavyweight Maxime Verhagen, a Christian-Democrat, unveiled the new government’s policy on renewable energy, it was no surprise that this included a large cutback of green subsidies: from about €4 billion a year to just €1.5 billion. The new scheme is more than a cutback, though – it also aims at a radical overhaul of the existing methodology behind the allocation of subsidies. The plan intends to reward and stimulate “efficient” (cheap) forms of renewable energy, such as onshore wind power, and does not support relatively inefficient (expensive) renewables, such as offshore wind.”

Northern New Brunswick wind turbines frozen solid

http://www.globalmontreal.com/technology/Northern+Brunswick+wind+turbines+frozen+solid/4286952/story.html

“A $200-million wind farm in northern New Brunswick is frozen solid, cutting off a potential supply of renewable energy for NB Power.

The 25-kilometre stretch of wind turbines, located 70 kilometres northwest of Bathurst, N.B. has been completely shutdown for several weeks due to heavy ice covering the blades.”

Why Wind Won’t Work -The social and economic impacts of rural wind farms.

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/why-wind-wont-work.pdf

“Wind power is very dilute, and thus a large area of land is required to gather significant energy. Wind energy needs a wide network of roads, transmission lines and turbines which degrades any area containing wind farms. It has a huge land footprint.

The operating characteristics of turbine and generator mean that only a small part of wind energy can be captured.

Wind power is also intermittent, unreliable and hard to predict. Therefore large backup or storage systems are required. This adds to the capital and operating costs and increases the instability of the network.

Wind farms are uniformly hated by neighbours and will not be willingly accepted without heavy compensation payments. Their noise, flicker, fire risk and disturbing effect on domestic and wild animals are well documented.

The wind is free but wind power is far from it. Its cost is far above all conventional methods of generating electricity. Either taxpayers or consumers will pay this bill.”

“The blades can only extract part of the energy, thus slowing down the wind in the process. The maximum proportion of the energy that can be extracted by a perfect propeller in a perfect wind is given by the Betz limit and that limit is about 59%. This is referred to as the Power Co-efficient. In the real world the very best turbines in an ideal wind could maybe peak at about 50%. Most large wind turbines built today have a Power Coefficient (PC) of no more than 37%.

If the wind speed is higher or lower than ideal, the PC will be lower. If the wind blows too fast, much kinetic energy slips between the blades and is lost. And in very high winds, the turbines are shut down completely so they do not shake themselves to bits.

But that is not the end of the weaknesses of wind power generation.

The spinning turbine has to be converted into electrical energy at each turbine. This is done using an electric generator. Electrical generators have been used for over 100 years so their technology is mature and their performance well known.

Electric generators achieve maximum efficiency at their design capacity. This is planned to suit the ”average” wind speed, and the generator produces maximum safe output at this speed. If the wind drops, so does the power generated. If the wind rises, the energy generated is limited to the design capacity of the generator (by varying the pitch of the blades) and at some point the generator is shut down to prevent burnout. So the generator cuts off all the high-energy infrequent wind, in order to capture the maximum energy from the winds expected by the turbine designers at that location. These unavoidable operating characteristics of the turbine also reduce the power generated.”

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1342032/You-dont-need-weatherman-know-way-wind-blows.html#ixzz1CEM1mpmm

“In percentage terms, how much electricity do Britain’s 3,150 wind ­turbines supply to the ­National Grid?

Is it: a) five per cent; b) ten per cent; or c) 20 per cent? Come on, I’m going to have to hurry you. No conferring.

Time’s up. The correct answer is: none of the above. Yesterday afternoon, the figure was just 1.6 per cent, according to the official website of the wholesale electricity market.

Over the past three weeks, with demand for power at record levels because of the freezing weather, there have been days when the contribution of our forests of wind turbines has been precisely nothing.

It gets better. As the temperature has plummeted, the turbines have had to be heated to prevent them seizing up. Consequently, they have been consuming more electricity than they generate.

Even on a good day they rarely work above a quarter of their theoretical capacity. And in high winds they have to be switched off altogether to prevent damage.

At best, the combined output of these monstrosities is equal only to that of a single, medium-sized, gas-fired power station.”

Wind power heat warning

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/wind-power-heat-warning/story-e6frea83-1225978916924

“WIND power should not be relied on to guarantee electricity supply during hot days, experts say.

Wind turbines operate at less than three per cent of their total generation in hot weather because limits to prevent overheating and a lack of wind can stifle their output when temperatures soar past 35C.

The State Government and the Australian Energy Market Operator yesterday revealed there would be enough electricity in SA today to meet demand and loadshedding and blackouts would not occur from a lack of power. However, AEMO statistics show the amount of electricity generated by wind turbines in hot weather falls to a bare minimum.

The reduction in wind generation during peak periods, or at the hottest times of the day, is partially attributed to limits placed on some turbines at high temperatures to prevent overheating,” an AEMO spokeswoman said.”

This one is 3 years old but an actual and interesting example of the consequences of the unreliability of wind power when most needed.

Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/28/1303/48225/299/465497

HOUSTON (Reuters) – A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the state.”

Wind power gets bent out of shape in Wyoming

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/wind-power-gets-bent-out-of-shape-in-wyoming/#more-33030

Combine cold temperatures that make steel brittle along with gusty winds, and you have a Titanic recipe for disaster. For those that will argue that I’m being unfair to the promise of wind power, I welcome you to provide photos of any power plant in the USA that has been collapsed due to weather. Downed power poles sure, but power sources?”

Fire in the Sky – The bushfire threat from wind generators.

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/fire-in-the-sky.pdf

“In the case of wind generators if there is a measurable likelihood of fires occurring and

with the lack of constant supervision of such high energy equipment it would be a real expectation that the owners of the generators would be liable for all the fire damage, which could reach into the billions if they caused fires on days of extreme fire danger.”

It has been reported that about 20 turbines catch fire and burn each year. The global total number of turbines appears to be around 68 000. All these figures are World Wide Web data and some from Wikipedia. They provide a rough guide to quantifying the bushfire risk but should not be taken as definitive. Applying the global data to the 2000 or so turbines installed in Australia we would expect a 60% probability of one turbine fire each year.”

Wind farms becalmed just when needed the most

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8234616/Wind-farms-becalmed-just-when-needed-the-most.html

Despite high demand for electricity as people shivered at home over Christmas, most of the 3,000 wind turbines around Britain stood still due to a lack of wind.

Even yesterday, when conditions were slightly breezier, wind farms generated just 1.8 per cent of the nation’s electricity — less than a third of usual levels.

The failure of wind farms to function at full tilt during December forced energy suppliers to rely on coal-fired power stations to keep the lights on — meaning more greenhouse gases were produced. “

Britain’s offshore windpower costs twice as much as coal and gas generated electricity

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8028328/Britains-offshore-windpower-costs-twice-as-much-as-coal-and-gas-generated-electricity.html

“Off shore wind farms cost twice as much to produce electricity as gas and coal powered stations and will need subsidies for at least 20 years, a major report warns.

But costs of building the farms have doubled due to spiralling prices for steel and the drop in the value of the pound.

The running costs are also increasing.

The report found that costs have risen for all kinds of generation but off shore wind farms remain by far the most expensive – 90 per cent more than fossil fuel generators and 50 per cent more than nuclear.

Revealed: Wind farm power twice as costly as gas or coal

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315711/Wind-farm-power-twice-costly-gas-coal.html

“The report, from the UK Energy Research Centre – a Government funded academic think tank – said the costs of offshore wind power were underestimated in the mid-2000s.

Instead of costs falling as predicted, in the last five years the cost of buying and installing turbines and towers at sea has gone up by 51 per cent.

Once the bill for building and maintaining an offshore wind farm is spread over the 25-year lifespan of a typical farm, each kilowatt hour of electricity now costs 15p.

That’s nearly twice as expensive as electricity from conventional coal and gas power stations, which costs 8p a unit, and more than nuclear, which costs 10p a unit. “

The true cost of wind is likely to be much higher than the 15p a unit outlined in the report.

Because wind is intermittent, the National Grid is forced to rely on a fleet of gas and coal power stations to back up the supply when the wind fails. “

Wind Integration Realities: The Bentek Study for Texas (Part I – IV)

http://www.masterresource.org/category/windpower/emissions-reduction-wind/

“In summary, the Netherlands experience is that at wind penetration of about 3% the fossil fuel and CO2 emissions saving is reduced to zero. As wind penetration is increased, the Colorado and Texas experience shows that the savings become negative, that is, fossil fuel and CO2 emissions are increased.”

Solare, Oh No

http://www.taz.de/1/zukunft/umwelt/artikel/1/solare-oh-no/

“Nicht ganz so drastisch wie bei der Sonnen- soll der Schnitt bei der Windenergie sein: Hier soll die Förderung um 22 Prozent gekürzt werden, allerdings auch rückwirkend für bereits in Betrieb befindliche Anlagen. Das Signal wäre auch hier fatal: Verlässliche Investitionspläne würden unmöglich, wenn die Regierung sich die Neudefinition der Fördersätze nach eigenem Gutdünken vorbehält.“

Germany cuts solar subsidies by up to 15 pct

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/germany-solar-idUSLDE71N2JL20110224

“German lawmakers passed on Thursday a law cutting solar power subsidies by up to 15 percent from this summer, six months earlier than originally planned, dealing a blow to the world’s biggest photovoltaic market.

The lower parliamentary house voted to introduce the cuts for roof installations from July and for ground-based cell assemblies from September.”

Austerity pulling plug on Europe’s green subsidies

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/eric-reguly/austerity-pulling-plug-on-europes-green-subsidies/article1883888/

“The Spanish and Germans are doing it. So are the French. The British might have to do it. Austerity-whacked Europe is rolling back subsidies for renewable energy as economic sanity makes a tentative comeback. Green energy is becoming unaffordable and may cost as many jobs as it creates.”

“Sunny Spain became the world’s top solar power producer. Since 2002, about €23-billion has been invested in Spain’s photovoltaic (PV) industry, which sucked up €2.7-billion in subsidies in 2009 alone, or more than 40 per cent of the freebies doled out to the country’s entire renewables sector.”

“Renewable energy is fraught with difficulties. In less-sunny climates, PV panels make little sense, though that hasn’t stopped Germany and Britain from installing them on rooftops everywhere. Wind power is becoming hugely popular in some parts of the world. But since the wind doesn’t always blow, backup power has to be installed. That means consumers have to pay for the capacity twice and the backup power is usually of the fossil-fuel variety. Denmark, which has a reputation as the cleanest of the clean countries, actually generates about half its electricity from coal, the grubbiest fuel. That proportion hasn’t varied in a decade in spite of the country’s relentless pursuit of wind power.”

Mafia’s new tactics: putting dirty money into clean energy

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100916-292547/Mafias-new-tactics-putting-dirty-money-into-clean-energy

ROME — The seizure of a record 1.5 billion euros from a Sicilian businessman known as ”Lord of the Wind” has put the spotlight on Mafia money-laundering through renewable energy ventures.

The Mafia use clean energy to invest dirty money,” Sicilian journalist Lirio Abbate told AFP after police confiscated the assets from businessman Vito Nicastri on Tuesday.

The haul included no fewer than 43 wind and solar energy companies and around 100 properties including swank villas with swimming pools in Sicily’s western Trapani region, along with cars, a catamaran and bank accounts, the interior ministry said.

The infiltration of organised crime into the renewable energy sector is ”a combination that is only now coming to light” in terms of legal action, said Abbate, a specialist in Mafia affairs who is under police protection.”

Steve Goreham (”Climatism”) quotes US and UK electricity generating costs (excluding the cost of carbon permits and the cost of backup generating facilities for wind and solar):

 

Goreham (p272) also compares the planned London Array offshore wind field with the planned Kingsnorth Coal fired plant and concludes:

”The wind turbine array requires 563 times more land than the coal plant and delivers electricity intermittently at twice the cost.”

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Etiketter: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 svar to “The Extremely Costly and Total Madness of Large Scale Wind Power”

  1. Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Mar.17th 2011 « The Daily Bayonet Says:

    […] Large-scale wind energy projects are just an expensive disaster. […]

  2. Ellis Manfredonia Says:

    I just want to say I am new to blogging and site-building and seriously loved you’re page. Likely I’m planning to bookmark your website . You certainly have outstanding posts. Appreciate it for sharing your web site.

  3. Una Says:

    Do you mind if I quote a few of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back
    to your website? My blog is in the very same
    niche as yours and my users would really benefit from some of the information
    you present here. Please let me know if this ok with
    you. Thanks!

  4. Latanya Says:

    We absolutely love your blog and find nearly all of your post’s to be just what I’m
    looking for. Would you offer guest writers to write content for you personally?
    I wouldn’t mind creating a post or elaborating on many of the subjects you write with regards to here. Again, awesome web log!

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: