Posts Tagged ‘wind turbines’

Britain – A perfect example of how politicians Global Warming Hysteria kill their own people, especially the poor.

20 oktober, 2011

Or as Tom Nelson so aptly puts it:

“Insanity in Britain: With people dying from the cold because they can’t afford enough home heating, the government is deliberately raising heating costs in an attempt to make it slightly colder outside.”

And remember, this policy IS DONE ON PURPOSE! Even as the temperature is cooling.

And, as I have sad on so many occasions, it is we the common people who have to pay the gigantic price, now literally, for this anti human madness

This is another perfect example of what I have been saying all along, it has always been a political agenda – anti human, anti freedom, anti development and anti capitalism. And this Global Warming Hysteria is part of that agenda. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

All of this, as always, paid by us, the common people, in the form of taxes, high energy costs and reducing our living standard back to the Stone Age.

And now these policies, and there INTENDED effects, are actually killing their own people.

And all of this to “save” the Earth from a “catastrophic warming” when it is actually cooling.

And the most absurd thing is that all the things that the “intelligent” politicians and the so called “scientists”, with the willing help of mainstream media, have forced through at EXTREME cost to us, are actually helping to accelerate the cooling.

Another proud day for the politicians, and the so called “scientists”, in the name of Global Warming Hysteria and “saving” the Earth BUT NOT THE PEOPLE.

Tom’s comment here:

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/10/insanity-in-britain-with-people-dying.html

At least 2,700 a year die in freezing homes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/8837091/At-least-2700-a-year-die-in-freezing-homes.html

“More people die each year because they are unable to afford their household fuel bills than are killed in crashes on Britain‘s roads, a Government-commissioned report has found.

At least 2,700 people are dying in Britain every year because they are unable to adequately heat their houses, according to the interim findings of a report commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

The number of deaths outstrips the 1,857 people killed in road traffic accidents last year, said Professor John Hills, the academic at London School of Economics who wrote the report on fuel poverty and described it as a ‘very serious problem.’

He said that the estimate for people dying from cold is conservative and could be far higher.

It is making people ill, for some people it is actually killing them, it is worsening hardship for people who are already poor,” said Professor Hills.

And Professor Hills warned that the government’s push towards more greener energy supplies could push thousands more Britons into fuel poverty through rising costs.

His report – which was commissioned by Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, in March this year – found that “regressive” energy and climate change policies could add up to £140 to the annual energy bills of the country’s poorest households by 2020.

Four million households in the UK are currently in fuel poverty. This figure has trebled from 1.2 million households since 2004.

Sally Copley, head of UK poverty at Save the Children, said that keeping the home warm is “becoming a luxury that only the better off can afford.”

“It is estimated that a fifth of an electricity bill is made up of climate change policies, equivalent to £15 per megawatt-hour. This could more than double in the next decade.”

And remember this nearly two years ago:

Pensioners burn books for warmth

Hard-up pensioners have resorted to buying books from charity shops and burning them to keep warm.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/807821-pensioners-burn-books-for-warmth

“Volunteers have reported that ‘a large number’ of elderly customers are snapping up hardbacks as cheap fuel for their fires and stoves.”

“Ruth Davison, of the National Housing Federation, said: ‘The spiralling cost of energy means heating homes has become a luxury rather than a necessity for many people – particularly the elderly, low paid and unemployed.’”

And no two years later it is even worse thanks to “our” dear politicians. Way to go.

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

 varning-2

Portugal – The perfect example of how the ”Green” economy destroys a country and sends it into the Abyss

19 april, 2011

Below is an insider’s perspective of Portugal’s “Green” madness from EcoTretas. With ALL the NOW so well-known and typical ingredients from this Global Warming Hysteria.

Read, and be truly horrified over how our “intelligent” politicians on purpose are committing economic hara-kiri (Seppuku) for “our” countries.

And, as I have sad on many occasions, it is we the common people who have to pay the gigantic price for this madness.

The end result of a “Green economy”

Your country next?

http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/04/dark-economy-inside-perspective.html

A Dark Economy – an inside perspective

Many of my international readers should know that Portugalis seeking a rescue package. The reason for the bailout? Strange as it may seem: a green economy that has gotten dark, so much darker… Portugalwill be the ONLY country in the World, according to the IMF (check out Table 2.2), that will have a GDP negative growth in 2012! José Sócrates, Environment Minister between 1999 and 2002, and Prime Minister since 2005, is the person behind this tragedy. His green vision has brought Portugal some recognition amongst greenies, but mainly a dark future!

Almost everything imaginable in this Green promise has gone wrong. Murphy’s law at its best:

Portugal was the first country with wave power in the world, at Aguçadoura; it broke down only two months later. Portugal has one of the biggest solar photovoltaic power stations in the World, at Amareleja, owned by Acciona, a Spanish company. The huge feed-in tariffs being paid for this solar energy is being sent to our neighbors…

Wind power has been a big bet. Big promises included green jobs, but the truth is that they are only a few thousands… The reality is that the more the wind blows, the poorer we get. This is true because wind feed-in tariffs are much higher than energy prices in the spot market.

With such a high share of wind energy, dam construction has started, so that they can be used for energy storage. A double cost, which would not be needed, if wind energy was not so big. But it doesn’t stop here: gas power stations had to be paid for being in standby, rising even more the indirect costs of wind power.

Portugal has boasted that it exported electricity energy for the first time in 2010. The truth is that most of that energy was exported at zero cost, a strange concept with an easy explanation: when wind blows, especially at night, energy consumption is low; the same does occur also in Spain, so they don’t need the energy. Spain exports it through France, and gets our excess energy for free. Once again, Portuguese consumers and taxpayers are subsidizing other richer countries…

It isn’t no surprise that electricity prices are very high in Portugal. Despite slightly above the European mean value, the low income means that energy is comparably much more expensive in Portugal. And this is only half of the picture, as the KWh energy price accounts for only about 40% of the electricity bill, the rest being taxes and subsidies…

Gasoline and Diesel also have very high prices in Portugal, amongst the biggest in the World. The reason: multiple taxes and subsidies paid at the gas pump. All this has a great impact on the Economy, and is the main reason behind fuel tourism to Spain, where prices are much lower. In fact, they are so much lower, that near the border, people drive 50Km or more just to fill the tank!

Lately, things have gotten even worse. Sócrates is pushing for electric cars, but nothing in those cars is being made in Portugal. Once again, we are effectively paying for R&D being made somewhere else, without any advantage for the country. Despite being one of the countries with the highest lithium reserves in the World, no value is added in Portugal.

Portugal also has some well proven gas reserves. Despite that, they are not being explored, with tourism fears being invoked. My view is that Sócrates wouldn’t go this way, as it is not green… And despite potential shale gas reserves being pointed out, no one talks about it in Portugal!

And I could continue. Talk about CO2 compensations sent to other countries, projects involving offshore wind or even more expensive solar energy. The truth is that the green promise has brought us a dark future. Remember this the next time someone tries to sell you a green economy…

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>

The Extremely Costly and Total Madness of Large Scale Wind Power

11 mars, 2011

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>

Record cold and snow in November – Wind Power at 12% output

4 december, 2010

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 posts (some are in Swedish):

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 14

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 13

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 12

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 11

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 10

Vindkraften – En MINSKNING med 98 % på 3 dagar!

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 8

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 7

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 6

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 5

 Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 4,

  Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 3

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 2

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt

Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas. – And emits more CO2 than thought

Wind power – what a costly and unreliable joke!

The reality of wind power – Extremely high cost and unreliably

However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to be – the reality is even worse

Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals,

The Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power! 

Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion? 

All You Need To Know about Denmark and Wind Power

Who knew a ”free” source of energy – Wind Power could be so expensive? 

Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power!Carbon Credits Fund Broken Turbine

So I thought it would be interesting to look at the statistics for Swedish wind power during the last 30 days. When we had record cold and snow all over the world. Just now it is – 10C outside and the snow is deep.

This is the combined statistics from the Swedish wind turbines and the big wind farms during the last 30 days.

The total combined output today is 12% of capacity.

And during the bitterest cold days the output dropped 50 % in two days (Now 29-Dec 1). And 74% in 4 days (Nov 29-Dec 3).

Imagine if this had been the main power source during this week? Thank God that we have nuclear power and water power (hydropower) covering 95% of our needs in Sweden.

AND THESE ARE EXACTLY THE POWER SOURCES OUR POLITICIANS AND THE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERICS WANT TO BAN AND ABOLISH!

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

Here are just a few examples of what the statistics show during the last three winters:

The total combined output at 3%, 4%, 6% or 9% during cold periods when the output is MOST NEEDED. And a drop in output of 84% in two days. Or a 98 % drop in three days. Or a 67% drop in one day.

Here are some more examples of drop in output during the winter 2008-2009:

50 %  in 1 DAY (18/3).

89 %  in 2 DAYS (23-25/1).

98 %  in 3 DAYS (23-26/1).

84 %  in 2 DAYS (12-14/1).

84 %  in 2 DAYS (22-24/12).

67 %  in 1 DAY (10/12).

50 %  in 1 DAY (11/12).

87 %  in 3 DAYS (27-30/11)

These figures are the norm. It shows one thing beyond any doubt, how fundamental unreliable the wind power is. Especially when it is needed most. Which in it self is very obvious, except for our intelligent politicians and the Global warming Hysterics, because of the nature of that power.

Imagine running a hospital, or a process industry like steal or pulp, and you loose 67% of your power during one day? With figures like that you have to shut down parts of a country, whole industries, city’s etc.

And with a drop of 84% in two days, or 98% in three days, you have to effectively shut down the whole country.

Back to the Stone Age in two days.

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

And then you could look at the huge economic cost for wind power. The huge state and local subsidies on all levels – which make it a very profitable business for the owner and very, very expensive for the consumers. The extra power that has to be built to compensate for wind powers notorious unreliability (the standard is around 20-25 % of its capacity). The need to upgrade the grid. Not to mention its sharp swings up and downs when delivering power. 

You can also mention the short lifespan and huge replacement and service cost for these turbines. And the noise they produce to their neighbors delight. The huge number of birds being killed just to mention a few other “benefits”.

“Funny enough”, a lot of these birds are usually on the national protected species act.

But that doesn’t seem to bother the Global Warming Hysterics a bit. Which otherwise would not hesitate to stop huge industrial/ power projects which are beneficial for the country and the people, just because there is one pair of protected species there.

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.

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>

The reality of wind power – Extremely high cost and unreliably

21 mars, 2009

More on the very high cots, high subsidy ant the unreliability of wind power. In this case from Spain where the government have subsidized wind power with OVER 90 % over the market price!

And solar power has been subsidized with OVER 575 % over the market price!

Isn’t it fantastic! Subsides of over 90% and 575% over market price!

I mean with subsides of over 90% and 575% I can turn any lousy money losing business into profit for my self but at a HUGE cost to society and the taxpayers.

And Shell is getting out of wind and solar power business for the same reasons.

Spain has increased its emissions by 40% since signing the Kyoto protocol. And yet, in contrast to the government estimate in 2004 that emissions permits would cost Spanish companies no more than 85 million euros annually, the real cost is now estimated at between 3 billion (government statement) and 15 billion euros (Price Waterhouse Coopers).”

”For the first 15 years, a subsidy of 90% over the market price has been payable, reducing to 80% thereafter. And for solar, in which Spain is also seen as a leader, subsidies have amounted to 575% of the market price for 25 years, then declining to ”only” 460%. With returns of 12 to 20%, the take up has been understandably high (indeed, there have been waiting lists). ”

”And they come at a cost: a renewables subsidy of 2.6bn euros in 2007, with about one third of the total going to the solar sector, which represents only 0.7% of installed capacity and about half the total number of jobs.”

The costs are such that the government has now had to reduce the subsidy for solar power by 30% and cap the amount of new capacity to be installed. This softening of support resulted in 10,000 job losses. Further reductions of subsidies put 40,000 more green jobs at risk. Energy prices are rising to cover losses in the distribution industry, and generators have announced the cancellation of 4.5bn euros of annual investment because they also pay an effective subsidy for renewable energy through the controlled price to the consumer.”

Se also my post among many others:

 Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to be – the reality is even worse

The Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power!

Who knew a ”free” source of energy – Wind Power could be so expensive?

Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power!Carbon Credits Fund Broken Turbine

Article here:

http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=57640

Date: 20/03/09

Scientific Alliance newsletter 20th March 2009

The reality of wind power and green-collar jobs in Spain

Sometimes, two stories come along which starkly contradict each other. A perfect example is the reporting of Spain’s green credentials. The country is often held up as an example to laggards across the EU of how to invest in renewable energy. Take, for example, a piece in the Times last week, headlined ”Spanish windmills tilt country towards cleaner, greener energy”.

According to this, 30% of Spain’s energy in January and February came from wind and hydro power, thanks to wet and windy weather, and the figure for the year as a whole is expected to be nearer 30% than 20%. For comparison, ”carbon” energy (presumably coal- and gas-fired stations) accounted for 14.3% and nuclear 20.9%. Where the other 35% of energy came from is anyone’s guess: no figures are given. Crucially, the actual contributions of hydro and wind power are not given, but the likelihood is that the bulk of the 30% was hydro power.

Although great strides may well have been made in the last few years, it is difficult to reconcile these figures with those for Spain in 2005 taken from the EU energy portal (www.energy.eu). This gives a figure of 8.7% as the contribution of renewables: pretty much the EU average, and with a target of 20% by 2020. And as for carbon dioxide emissions, Spain is projected in 2010 still to be nearly 24% above its 2012 Kyoto target.

Another view of this situation was given by Dr Gabriel Calzada, Associate Professor of Economics at King Juan Carlos University during the Heartland Institute’s climate change conference in New York last week. In contrast to the Times article, the title was ”Spain’s new energy economy: Boom and bust of the Spanish renewable miracle”.

According to his figures, Spain has increased its emissions by 40% since signing the Kyoto protocol. And yet, in contrast to the government estimate in 2004 that emissions permits would cost Spanish companies no more than 85 million euros annually, the real cost is now estimated at between 3 billion (government statement) and 15 billion euros (Price Waterhouse Coopers).

As for renewable energy, the rapid growth of wind power is not surprising. For the first 15 years, a subsidy of 90% over the market price has been payable, reducing to 80% thereafter. And for solar, in which Spain is also seen as a leader, subsidies have amounted to 575% of the market price for 25 years, then declining to ”only” 460%. With returns of 12 to 20%, the take up has been understandably high (indeed, there have been waiting lists).

The result is that installed wind capacity is just over 10% of the total for the country, although it is unclear whether this is theoretical or makes allowance for a realistic efficiency factor. The buoyant market has created around 50,000 jobs, but these are nearly all for installing new capacity and so do not provide long term employment. And they come at a cost: a renewables subsidy of 2.6bn euros in 2007, with about one third of the total going to the solar sector, which represents only 0.7% of installed capacity and about half the total number of jobs.

The costs are such that the government has now had to reduce the subsidy for solar power by 30% and cap the amount of new capacity to be installed. This softening of support resulted in 10,000 job losses. Further reductions of subsidies put 40,000 more green jobs at risk. Energy prices are rising to cover losses in the distribution industry, and generators have announced the cancellation of 4.5bn euros of annual investment because they also pay an effective subsidy for renewable energy through the controlled price to the consumer.

So, with Kyoto emissions targets almost certain to be significantly overshot and the bubble of green-collar jobs now burst, the Spanish government must be wondering how it managed to waste so much money for so little reward. It is difficult to see an economic recovery in Europe (or the USA) being led by a boom in long-term green-collar jobs.

Shell gets back to basics

The reality of renewable power generation has also dawned on Shell. Several newspapers have carried the story that the company is stopping its investments in wind and solar power because they are simply uneconomic. Last year, it pulled out of a partnership with E.ON to build the 1,000 MW (when the wind blows at the right strength) Thames Array off-shore project.

Environmentalists will argue that such decisions are wrong, because they believe that the future lies with such clean technologies. To compound the offence, Shell is investing more in biofuels, which have been criticised because of the relatively low carbon saving they make and their distorting effect on food prices.

However, doing projects which are not commercially viable is not generally good business. Businesses have to look after their profitability and their shareholders first. In so doing, they are often highly innovative and take significant risks with technologies which give no payback for many years, moving away from renewables does not just mean the company is playing safe. Shell is changing tack for a reason, and that reason is that it sees no prospects of wind power becoming commercially viable for the foreseeable future.

Over the last decade or so, wind turbines have become more efficient, and wind is the renewable power source which needs the lowest subsidy to compete. But Shell does not see a continuation of the trend to the point where wind power will be economically viable without a subsidy. The situation for solar power (as the figures from Spain show well) is much further away from being economically competitive.

Even if wind (and eventually, solar) power become serious options, their intermittency remains a major problem until cheap, high capacity storage is available. In these circumstances, an energy company such as Shell is understandably getting back to basics and pursuing routes where it sees more potential. Biofuels is one of these.

True, this sector also has problems at present and requires subsidies to keep it viable. But the scope for major developments over the next few years is much greater. The first company which can convert waste biomass into a range of energy-dense fuels in a way which is potentially cost-effective has an important first mover advantage in what could be a large sector of the future transport fuels market.

It may turn out that Shell has backed the wrong horse in this particular case. Other companies may make a breakthrough in low-cost photovoltaics, or in some other area. But the point is that there will be a range of options being pursued by companies which all think they can be winners. Some of them will succeed, some will fail; the market will decide. This is a much better way of harnessing creative potential than single-mindedly focussing on just wind and solar power. Objective, hard-headed decision making will give the best results in the long term.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2


%d bloggare gillar detta: