JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Wind-farms: Let’s copy the UK, pay money for nothing, and lots of it.

by Color CS

You know, the one comforting thing about the insanity going on in the UK is that Australia doesn’t seem quite so basket-case, suicidally silly. Actually that’s not really true, both countries are barking mad, but thanks to David Cameron its a little less lonely at the loony farm. Democractic dementia has company.

Exhibit A:

In 2008 Ministers were aiming to generate 20 per cent of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2020. Professor MacKay explained back then, that to reach that, they would have to put wind farms over the entirety of Wales. How did the governing class respond? By 2011, the UK Coalition took that crazy renewable target and doubled it.

Exhibit B:

– Two thirds of Britain’s turbines are fully or partly owned by foreign businesses.

– Total subsidies paid to these non-UK owned farms is £523 million.

– The subsidies paid to local folk are handy for  Dukes and whatnot, and those who have large estates (especially ones they don’t live on) who can pick up the £20,000 a year in subsidies — milked from people who don’t have large estates and are forced to pay more for electricity.

Now I’ve got nothing against foreigners earning money from investing, taking risks, and producing something the people of the UK want, which brings me to…

Exhibit C:

– Wind farm paid £1.2 million to produce no electricity.

Because delicate electrical equipment needs a steady supply of electricity, and wind being what it is, wind farms often make too much or too little. When it’s too little, the rest of the grid has to ramp up to make up for it*, and when it’s too much, the grid has to blow up. Well, it’s that or pay scads of money to get the windfarms to stop.

We thought windfarms were wildly costly for electricity, but it seems,  it’s a magnitude more so if you want them switched off.  £1.2 million is the going rate for 8 hours of nothing. Who knew?

True to form of course, the BBC is protecting the people of the UK from their rulers insanity, by hiding the awkward facts. It’s a religion you know.

Image from Wikimedia

* Yes, it costs more when the wind doesn’t blow too. Keeping those other reliable sources ramping up and down costs more and is so inefficient sometimes it produces more CO2 with more windpower than without it.

H/t to Benny Peiser

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Wind-farms: Let's copy the UK, pay money for nothing, and lots of it., 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3j47jsb

71 comments to Wind-farms: Let’s copy the UK, pay money for nothing, and lots of it.

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    We have so many areas, well documented, that do not support either the catastrophism that is driving the CO2-reduction craze, or the tax-and-kill programs that are supposed to reduce our CO2 production, that one wonders why no politician can get even a private member’s bill introduced in Australia, Canada or the equivalent elsewhere, to study the “reality” of the skeptic’s “unreality”.

    If the skeptic/denier is so wrong, why not demonstrate it and destroy the opposition? If half the people are being fed dangerous and incorrect knowledge, why not bring those responsible to a public platform and demand that they put their cards on the table?

    Oh, I know. Because the cause is not clear, and doubt is reasonable, and a program based on certainty cannot survive the destruction of its “certainty” any more than it can the destruction of its science-base.

    But it is interesting, is it not, that no back-bencher can get a private member’s bill introduced, let alone voted on. Or is willing to try.

    Which is more to the point.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Wind power is completely unreliable. Unfortunately, the wind rarely blows when it is extremely hot or extremely cold and that is when you need it the most. As usual, the cost of more expensive electricity will be passed on to the consumer and the poor will suffer the most, as usual!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mwhite

    This site shows the UKs electricity usage

    http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

    Click – Generation By Fuel Type (table)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Here’s whatt I posted at Bishop Hill. It is what Dr John Etherington, author of “The Wind Farm Scam” has to say about the latest official energy statistics released for 2010 (Digest of UK Energy Statistics – DUKES):

    Data for 2010

    Total production – all fuels and sources 383,791 GWh

    Wind onshore 7,137 GWh. Load factor 21.7%

    Wind offshore 3,046 GWh. Load factor 30.5%

    Wind total 10,183 GWh

    Wind total as % total electricity production 2.7%

    Solar Photovoltaic (PV) GWh 33 GWh (0.3% of wind power total !!)

    Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Load factor 4.9%

    [I have included PV because the world is now full of “double glazing” sales-crooks and cold-callers who can only operate because government has given them a great reward which all the rest of us have to pay. Just look at the load factor !! And put “Solar PV” in a Google – if you have not tried already.]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Building wind farms is a great scam to be in. In what other industry can one get paid for not producing a product which nobody wants to buy?

    Does anybody know a quicker way to financial ruin than for consumers to pay money to buy nothing?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lord Beaverbrook

    I hope you are all learning from our experience in the UK,don’t allow any statement about the benefits of wind power to go unchallenged. They are inefficient, unsustainable and will be outside a town near you if you don’t object. Staying silent is the way that these monstrosities achieve planning permission. Englands green and pleasant land is under attack by the very proponents of our heritage, our elected peers.
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6987273/in-englands-green-and-pleasant-land.thtml


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Phillip Bratby asked: Does anybody know a quicker way to financial ruin than for consumers to pay money to buy nothing?

    Yes. Rely on the government to help you.

    Government universally helps itself to you rather than do what it should be doing: getting out of the way of the thoughts, choices, words, and actions of rights respecting individuals.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I don’t have a link to it, but below is a letter to the Telegraph back in 2006.

    Sir – Once again the public are being misled by the wind industry. These windfarms, which are going to cover over 100 square miles of the approaches to the Thames Estuary, will never power one third of London homes.

    If as suggested the installed capacity of the 400-plus turbines is 1.3 Gw (1300Mw) then even with a generous load factor of 30 per cent the average output will only be 390Mw. This would in fact be enough to provide 5Kw to 78,000 homes, about enough to power an electric kettle and a toaster. If, as there frequently is, a high pressure system is sitting over south-east England, then there will be zero output from these windfarms. The claims about carbon dioxide savings are equally dishonest. Using widely accepted data the annual, theoretical savings of CO2 for these turbines would be approximately 1.46 Mt and would reduce global levels by a farcical 0.005 per cent.

    What your readers really need to know is that these windfarms will receive approximately £160 million per year in subsidies, paid for by them. This windfarm scandal has gone on long enough and needs to be exposed for what is. We are destroying our landscapes and now our seascapes for nothing more than green tokenism, and are being expected to pay for it as well.

    Bob Graham, Chairman, Highlands Against Windfarms, Orton, Moray

    If Bobs numbers are close to correct, then 78,000 homes can use ‘green’ power to run their kettle and toaster at a subsidy of a little over £2000 per year.

    One might ask how could this happen? How could politicians, even the worst of them, approve of such stupidity?
    Follow the money. As Jos article points out, many people in power are up to their eyeballs in alternative energy investments.

    It’s a legal way to steal from the people, to rob the people, to loot the community.
    The recent looters of England are being tried quick-smart and in many cases being thrown in jail for up to 2 years for stealing a few tens of dollars worth of goods.
    The so called ‘leaders’ of our society, the ‘captains’ of our industry, are in a looting frenzy, yet not one will face a judge in a court room let alone spend a few nights behind bars.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Phillip Bratby:
    September 20th, 2011 at 4:43 am
    Building wind farms is a great scam to be in. In what other industry can one get paid for not producing a product which nobody wants to buy?

    Does anybody know a quicker way to financial ruin than for consumers to pay money to buy nothing?

    Perhaps a carbon tax because we get to pay to have what we do want and need destroyed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulaman

    In New Zealand we have an interesting “unintended consequence” from windpower. When the turbines are actually working the wholesale price of electricity plummets. This is because the turbine have to sell the e juice they make RIGHT NOW so the market drives the value down. So we have the most expensive electricity being sold for the lowest price…bizarre ‘nest pas?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    (Un)SkepticalScience is getting a deserved grilling over at WUWT:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/19/forbes-can-we-really-call-climate-science-a-science/

    Needless to say they were up to their usual tricks of deleting comments they didn’t agree with … no wonder the leftist establishment awards John Cook prizes.

    I am starting to wonder … is the fact that someone wins an award controlled by Government and/or educational institutions in the field of climate science sufficient evidence to completely discredit them? It is certainly starting to look that way, based upon previous award recipients.

    The more I read about climate science, the more I become cynical about human motives … perhaps it would be healthier if I avoided all such articles, but the cost to society is unimaginable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    And then you read the Newspoll results for the morning and realise the world hasn’t quite gone insane yet:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/record-newspoll-low-puts-alp-level-with-minor-parties-and-independents/story-fn59niix-1226141278793

    Labor hits a new record low in the primary vote… now equal to the Greens and the independents together.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make insane”. Wind farms are monuments to civilizational insanity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    You would have to wonder whether Commodore Bainimarama would consider a short consultancy.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    You guys are suffering from pre-realisation.

    On the previous thread, it’s been explained by a learned commenter that one must invest heavily in wind and solar BEFORE realising that they suck.

    Apparently, if you realise that they suck NOW, you won’t invest in them and you won’t lose bags of money on these medieval pea-shooter technologies.

    AND THEN NUCLEAR WON’T BECOME MORE ATTRACTIVE.

    This theory of post-realisation is probably too complicated for you guys. You have zero chance of winning a Euromoney award.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Bulldust:
    September 20th, 2011 at 7:27 am

    And then you read the Newspoll results for the morning and realise the world hasn’t quite gone insane yet:

    It will truely be a good day in the polls when it does not include information like this. The Greens’ support rose one point to 13 per cent


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Gillard and her gang of thieves and liars will go down in Australian political history as the worst government in living memory. They have lied to the electorate, ignored the InterAcademy Council Review of IPCC’s processes and procedures

    http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html

    which documents political interference, lack of transparency, bias, failure to respond to critical review comments, vague statements not supported by evidence, poor handling of uncertainty, reference to material which had not been peer-reviewed or critically evaluated, and a total lack of any policy to preclude conflict of interest.

    Gillard’s gaggle knows that polls consistently show that the majority of Australians are opposed to a carbon tax and yet that is what they are prepared to inflict on us. Their determination to sabotage the Australian economy is evidenced by the following viz.
    Treasury models which are based on unrealistic assumptions (the main one being that the rest of the world will ji in this lunacy).
    Designing the legislation in such a way that it will be extremely difficult, costly or even impossible to repeal.
    Stifling debate in the Parliament.
    Imposing an unrealistic deadline for submissions from the electorate
    (2 weeks to comment on hundreds of pages of legislation). It is patently obvious that Gillard & co have absolutely no intention of taking any notice of anything opponents say.

    As for windmills, all the comments above are relevant and true. They are not only, extremely expensive, inefficient, unsustainable, aesthetically disastrous but are also dangerous to birds and, according to many, harmful to human health. Many are unaware that windmills have a limited lifespan of some 20 years. Question: What happens after that? Do the contracts include provision for dismantling and removal of windmills and restoration of the landscape?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    A bit of an exaggeration here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14969399

    Notice the north, northeast and eastern differences between the satellite image of the greenland ice cover on the right to the Times atlas’ photoshopped version onthe left.

    Its good to see team agw actually starting to call out this sort of crap.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Morning All.

    Why is it necessary for wind turbines to be so conspicuous? I mean, if ordinary industry wants to build a large industrial structure, then the aesthetic impact on the locality needs to be considered.

    But this doesn’t apply to wind turbines! We are subjected to forests of these eyesores, each the mandatory white for maximum visual impact. It’s almost as though they are billboards for alarmists, making up for their lack of productive value with an exagerated visibility.

    Like most of the warmist industry, it’s all about visibiity rather than practical utility.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Here’s a copy of TonyfromOz submission to the Clean Energy Bills for your info and with Tony’s permission

    Great submission – maybe clean energy bills should be renamed to ‘no comparative energy bills’

    Sirs,

    With the ensuing passage of these Bills through the House and then The Senate, I was wondering if members in favour of these Bills might perhaps be able to bring Australians along with them by explaining how these Bills might facilitate the move to the current Clean Energy options of choice, Wind Power and the two versions of Solar Power, Solar Photovoltaic, and Concentrating Solar.

    Perhaps they might be able to point out just one plant in existence on the whole of Planet Earth, or even a plant that is in planning that can produce the same electrical power for consumption that is currently being generated by one large scale coal fired power plant, of which there are many in existence here in Australia.

    1. Perhaps they might mention how much power will actually be generated for consumption by this one example of any Renewable Plant.
    2. Perhaps they might mention on what time frame a renewable plant of this nature might be delivering its power.
    3. Perhaps they might mention the cost of this equivalent Plant.
    4. Perhaps they might mention how long it will take to construct this plant from the planning stage to the power delivery stage.
    5. Perhaps they might mention how long a plant of this nature might last.
    6. Perhaps they might mention how much Government (taxpayers) money will be given to (a) the construction of this plant, and (b) the subsidising of the generated electricity to the grid in an effort to make it somehow competitive with current power generation from coal fired power.
    7. Perhaps they might mention how much the cost of retail electricity to all consumers will increase with the introduction of a renewable plant of this nature.

    There’s really no point in addressing any of the 7 responses mentioned here, because there is no equivalent plant of this nature in existence anywhere in the World, and there is none planned or even contemplated in the near future.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Speedy… I agree – I guess they stick out because it is windy in sticking out sorts of places. There are some that conceal themselves fairly well – there were some I saw off-shore near the huge port of Zeebrugge in Belgium, that were part of the port side landscape (ie they camoflaged with the industrial landscape).


    Report this

    00

  • #

    For those of you who think that perhaps Wind Power might be a path we should take, and that some information may be ‘hyped’ to make it look less acceptable, Wind Power really is most definitely a path not to be taken.

    I have some information on just how Wind power generates its power with information explaining why it is such a ‘dud’.

    That information is at the following Post:

    The Limitations Of Renewable Power (Part 3) Wind Power

    Those entities that have proposals that are currently in train also use their own ‘hype’ to make them look like they are in fact a viable replacement for existing traditional power generation methods.

    They couch these proposals in what amounts to simplified ‘technical speak’ to make them look attractive, and while that method of description looks great, it actually is a ploy they use to hide that truth in plain sight, because most people do not understand what is actually being said.

    I explain in the following link how this is done in a current proposal for a relatively large scale Wind Plant currently approved for construction here in Australia, The Coopers Gap Wind Farm, to the West of Toowoomba in Queensland.

    How Renewable Power Disguises Its Failure To Deliver

    So, when you read of any new proposals for these Wind Farms to be constructed, be aware that they they are attempting to ‘snow’ you with information that looks so good, and when translated shows something entirely opposite.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Here is the windfarm I spoke of http://www.flickr.com/photos/andkar/4315176179/

    I would not call it beautiful. My google search revealed the following paper and this is relevant to any discussion about wind generation… the conflict of green advocacy for wind generators vs their impact. It concerns me greatly that so many turbines are located exactly where you don’t want them for conservation reasons. The factors that make for a good location for turbines are also factors that attract migratory birds (clear lines of site, convenient resting points and steady favourable wind).


    Author: Everaert, Joris; and Stienen, Eric
    Published in Biodiversity and Conservation, November 2006
    Abstract: We studied the impact of a wind farm (line of 25 small to medium sized turbines) on birds at the eastern port breakwater in Zeebrugge, Belgium, with special attention to the nearby breeding colony of Common Tern Sterna hirundo, Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis and Little Tern Sterna albifrons. With the data of found collision fatalities under the wind turbines, and the correction factors for available search area, search efficiency and scavenging, we calculated that during the breeding seasons in 2004 and 2005, about 168 resp. 161 terns collided with the wind turbines located on the eastern port breakwater close to the breeding colony, mainly Common Terns and Sandwich Terns. The mean number of terns killed in 2004 and 2005 was 6.7 per turbine per year for the whole wind farm, and 11.2 resp. 10.8 per turbine per year for the line of 14 turbines on the sea-directed breakwater close to the breeding colony. The mean number of collision fatalities when including other species (mainly gulls) in 2004 and 2005 was 20.9 resp. 19.1 per turbine per year for the whole wind farm and 34.3 resp. 27.6 per turbine per year for 14 turbines on the sea-directed breakwater. The collision probability for Common Terns crossing the line of wind turbines amounted 0.110-0.118% for flights at rotor height and 0.007-0.030% for all flights. For Sandwich Tern this probability was 0.046-0.088% for flights at rotor height and 0.005-0.006% for all flights. The breeding terns were almost not disturbed by the wind turbines, but the relative large number of tern fatalities was determined as a significant negative impact on the breeding colony at the eastern port breakwater (additional mortality of 3.0-4.4% for Common Tern, 1.8-6.7% for Little Tern and 0.6-0.7% for Sandwich Tern). We recommend that there should be precautionary avoidance of constructing wind turbines close to any important breeding colony of terns or gulls, nor should artificial breeding sites be constructed near wind turbines, especially not within the frequent foraging flight paths.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gnome

    Bah Humbug @ 7- run the numbers through a gross error checker and they don’t add up. About 5 Kw for 24 hours comes to about 100 Kw hours, which at about 20c per Kw hour comes to about $20 per day. That boils a lot of water and makes a lot of toast.

    Sure they are crap, but why exaggerate? We don’t need the bullshit to come from our side of the conversation- leave it to the alarmists.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Wind-farms: Let’s copy the UK, pay money for nothing, and lots of it. by Color CS [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    What happens to the climate if wind turbines take a large amount of energy out of the wind. Do we have global warming caused by a lack of convection? Do we have stronger winds in places that did not have much wind before? Could we chop up whole flocks of migratory birds in seasonal massacres?
    Are real environmentalists keen on any of these outcomes?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    gnome:#12
    September 20th, 2011 at 11:12 am

    Sure they are crap, but why exaggerate? We don’t need the bullshit to come from our side of the conversation- leave it to the alarmists.

    I’m a bit lost regards your response. Would you clarify for me what your objection is.
    Is it that more than 78,000 homes can be supplied with power by this windfarm or is it that more than just a kettle and toaster can be operated by the available power.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    INdeed Gnome in 24 the article linked to by Humbug is pretty crap. Could you imagine the massive increase in generating capacity we’d need if every household appliance was turned on at once in every home connected to the grid?

    If you ran the numbers according to that geezer’s logic you’d discover that we don’t have enough power generating capacity on the grid.

    Regardless – you’d probably get a kettle, toaster AND a hairdryer.

    Wind is still not a great solution for other than fringe generation capacity to maybe 10% of the grid (and that is a bit optimistic).


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Re Gee Aye’s point. I’ve recently spent a lot of time around wind turbines across rural Spain. On the meseta there were few trees to start with, though I’ve seen some impressive re-foresting programs. In fertile areas like Galicia, agriculture and hunting are ancient traditions, so that flora and fauna are long adapted to human activity.

    We talk about turbines, but forget about the enormous amount of cabling. We also forget that “windfarms” do not sit neatly in flat paddocks. To accommodate all this hardware in Australia we will have to do a lot of clearing of sensitive high areas. Wildlife and birdlife impacts will be far worse than in Spain. As for fire, a forgotten element during La Nina, and likely to be a very important factor in wind-farming on this continent, fuel loads are currently soaring across Australia’s east. (What’s that gas you get when vast eucalypt forests are incinerated?)

    As the world’s biggest exporter of coal, you’d think we could happily burn some of it here in new and efficient facilities…and give our agriculture, fauna and wilderness a break.

    But you don’t get Euromoney awards for thinking like that!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    posted about the protests on the previous thread. now, if only we could get such quick results from the anti-carbon tax/ETS protests!

    19 Sept: BBC: China solar panel factory shut after protests
    A solar panel factory in eastern China has been shut down after protests by local residents over pollution fears.
    Some 500 villagers staged a three-day protest following the death of large numbers of fish in a local river.
    Some demonstrators broke into the plant in Zhejiang province, destroying offices and overturning company cars before being dispersed by riot police.
    Tests on water samples showed high levels of fluoride, which can be toxic in high doses, officials said…
    They accuse Jinko Solar, a Chinese company making solar panels for sale overseas, of dumping hazardous chemicals into the water supply, our correspondent says…
    The firm in Haining city is a subsidiary of a New York Exchange-listed Chinese solar company, JinkoSolar Holding Company.
    Meanwhile, local government officials said there would be an overhaul of the production procedures at the plant involving the emission of waste gas and waste water…
    Chen Hongming, a deputy head of Haining’s environmental protection bureau, was quoted by Chinese media as saying that the factory’s waste disposal had failed pollution tests since April…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14968605


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    and we are pretending to reduce our CO2 emissions by bureacratising our entire economy around carbon dioxide!!!

    19 Sept: NYT: Bloomberg: Led by Demand in China, Energy Use Is Projected to Rise 53% by 2035
    Global energy demand will increase 53 percent from 2008 through 2035, with China and India accounting for half of the growth, the United States Department of Energy said on Monday…
    China and India will consume 31 percent of the world’s energy by 2035, up from 21 percent in 2008, the department’s International Energy Outlook projected. In 2035, Chinese energy demand will exceed that of the United States by 68 percent, it said.
    “Economic growth continues to look good in emerging nations,” Howard K. Gruenspecht, acting administrator of the Energy Information Administration, said on Monday at a briefing in Washington.
    Renewable sources will be the fastest-increasing energy category in the next 25 years, said the report, which was prepared by the information agency. Renewable energy demand will climb 2.8 percent a year over the period and will make up 15 percent of the total in 2035, up from 10 percent in 2008…
    Energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide will rise 43 percent, to 43.2 billion metric tons, from 2008 to 2035, the report said. Much of the increase will occur in developing countries, it said.
    The outlook “may overstate nuclear power’s future role” because it does not account for the reaction to the March disaster in Japan caused by an earthquake and a tsunami that caused meltdowns and radiation leaks at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, Mr. Gruenspecht said.
    The report projected that nuclear power would almost double, to 4.9 trillion kilowatt-hours by 2035, from 2.6 trillion kilowatt-hours in 2008.
    After the disaster in Japan, Germany said it would close its nuclear plants by 2022, and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it would consider new regulations for the 104 American commercial reactors.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/business/energy-environment/energy-demand-is-expected-to-rise-53-by-2035.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Patrick said: “What happens after that? Do the contracts include provision for dismantling and removal of windmills and restoration of the landscape?”

    I understand it is the responsibility of the owner of the land to dispose of the wind turbines when they reach the end of their cycle – it could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    mosomoso

    good comments and as true of Spain as anywhere.

    There is actually a lot of literature about the problem of bird flyways; much of the problem is that they are not well mapped and therefore don’t get added to wind farm impact statements. Tools are being developed and because data is so poor for some areas (e.g off shore and remote), modeling (yes models!) tools are needed to work out the most likely path for a flyway.

    Here is another grautuitous abstract, this time pertaining to Spain (telleria is a very well known avian biologist/ecologist.

    Wind power plants and the conservation of birds and bats in Spain: a geographical assessment
    Author(s): Telleria, JL (Luis Telleria, Jose)
    Source: BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION Volume: 18 Issue: 7 Pages: 1781-1791 DOI: 10.1007/s10531-008-9558-2 Published: JUN 2009
    Times Cited: 1 (from Web of Science)
    Cited References: 31 [ view related records ] Citation Map
    Abstract: The number of wind power plants installed in Spain has increased dramatically, and many are located in important wildlife areas. This paper explores the geographical overlap of wind power plants with the ranges of flying vertebrate species. The list of animals studied includes bats, soaring birds, and other birds that may be killed by turbines. Results show that the 10 x 10 km UTM squares occupied by wind power plants fell within the range of more bat and bird species than squares free of these infrastructures. For species included in the Spanish Red List, there were more wind power plants than expected inside the range of two raptors (Neophron percnopterus and Circus pygargus) and less than expected in six species (Ciconia nigra, Aquila adalberti, Hieraetus fasciatus Myotis capaccinii, Rhinolophus mehelyi and Myotis myotis). The rest of endangered species (15) had a range occupation similar to that predicted by random sampling, a result that reflects a poor strategy to prevent the overlap. These patterns may be explained by the small amount of overlap of the range of many of these animals with the windiest areas in Spain, where wind power plants are concentrated today. However, this situation is changing rapidly with the densification and expansion of wind power plants promoted under the Spanish Plan of Renewable Energies. This may produce the occupation of many areas important to bird and bat conservation, and therefore preventive measures should be implemented to protect these species and their habitats.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Humbug in 26… it is dodgy because if we look at the little old South West Interconnected System…

    Capacity = 4000MW
    Population = say 2 million

    = 4kw per person.
    = 10kw per home

    So that is only enough for a hairdyer (1kW), a toaster (1.2kW), a stereo, the reverse cycle aircon (2.5kW), microwave (1kW), dishwasher (1.3kw), the iron (1kW), CLothes dryer (4kW)….

    OMG THAT IS 12kW!!!! The grid is too small!!!! I Have far more appliances than that!! And that is just households and assumes no one else (like industry or commerce) uses any power!!!

    Therefore… assuming a capacity only delivers the sum demand of a range of items all in use at once would lead you to believe you needed a much bigger system…

    Source for energy usage of appliances: http://www.daftlogic.com/information-appliance-power-consumption.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Wind(less) power

    Failure to supply significant power amid record Texas heat this summer puts wind energy’s lack of reliability and economic viability on stark display.

    Manhattan Institute senior fellow Robert Bryce notes for National Review Online that on an “unspeakably hot” Aug. 24 in Texas, 10,135 megawatts of wind-generation capacity supplied just 880 megawatts of power “when electricity was needed the most” — in the afternoon, when wind subsides while heat and electricity demand rise.

    An inherently losing proposition, wind power is even more so in Texas, which has “far more super-hot days than … frigid ones,” as Mr. Bryce observes.

    He notes that the U.S. Energy Information Administration says wind energy costs about 50 percent more than reliable electricity generated by burning natural gas, which is abundant in Texas. Consumers there thus pay needlessly high electricity bills.

    With $6.79 billion in new wind-power transmission lines planned, those bills will rise even more.

    No Democrat has held statewide Texas office since 1999, Bryce reminds. It was Govs. George W. Bush and Rick Perry — Republicans who should know better — who endorsed renewable-energy mandates.

    It’s wind-power folly writ large. But hey, everything’s bigger in Texas, right?

    http://www.wind-watch.og/news/2011/9/19/windless-power/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    Hers a thought. Take note of what the EU does and do the complete opposite. You probably can’t go wrong!

    If Wayne swan gets a european award for beinga good treasurer, it really will prove that The EU has absolutely no idea about anything even mildly technical.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/not-the-worlds-greatest-treasurer/story-e6frg9if-1226141169579


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gnome

    BH@26-

    My real objection is that the article exaggerates. If I use the mantra “I will start listening when the warmists stop lying” I can’t very well justify exaggerations which purport to support my argument.

    5Kw will run your toaster, kettle, hairdryer, TV, refrigerator, freezer, computer, home pressure pump (if you have one), a hotplate or two and home lighting all at the same time. Yes I know it won’t do all those things and run a full sized oven, heating, airconditioning, clothes dryer or hot water system at the same time, so the 78,000 (or whatever) is a meaningless number, but no-one (on the grid) is paying 2000 pounds a year to run the toaster and the jug.

    Keep it real if you want to be heard.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    hey, it’s only taxpayer money!

    19 Sept: Bloomberg: Jim Efstathiou Jr: Solyndra Flop Fails to Slow Obama Team’s $9.2 Billion Push for Wind, Solar
    The Obama administration, defying congressional Republicans after the failure of solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC, is working to award as much as $9.2 billion in government financing to renewable energy companies before a Sept. 30 deadline.
    Loan guarantees for 14 companies will close by month’s end if the projects meet government lending rules, Damien LaVera, a Department of Energy spokesman, said in an interview. “We want to get as many of these done in a way that responsibly protects the taxpayers’ interest,” he said. “If they meet conditions set out in the agreement, then they’ll close.” …
    Solyndra was the third U.S. solar manufacturer to fail in a month as lower-cost Chinese panels and weak global demand drive a wave of industry consolidation…
    Ormat Technologies Inc. (ORA) of Reno, Nevada, is awaiting a $350 million loan guarantee to build geothermal power stations that can convert heat into electricity in Nevada. Chief Executive Officer Dita Bronicki said she doesn’t expect the uproar over Solyndra to derail Ormat’s application.
    “It’s hard to predict political fallout,” Bronicki said in an interview. “We are quite confident that we will close before Sept. 30.”
    Ormat Technologies is a unit of Yavne, Israel-based Ormat Industries Ltd. Foreign-owned companies are eligible for loans if their projects are located in the U.S., according to the Energy Department’s website.
    “We’re fairly confident that our process is moving along very well,” Jeff Broin, CEO of Poet, said in an interview. “It’s expected that some project(s) will fail. That’s why a loan guarantee program does exist in the first place.”…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-19/solyndra-flop-doesn-t-slow-9-2-billion-push-to-aid-wind-solar.html

    nice for some!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    this was headlined: “Probe sought in Solyndra Bankruptcy Case

    19 Sept: WSJ: Eric Morath: Lawmaker Seeks Solyndra Examiner
    Recent reports about the firm’s Chapter 11 filing “have raised suspicion about the extent to which the Obama administration may have singled out Solyndra for special treatment…because of the president’s political relationship with one of the company’s major investors, George Kaiser,” wrote House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R., Texas) in a letter to Mr. Holder.
    Mr. Kaiser, the Fremont, Calif., company’s largest backer, was a major fund-raiser in President’s Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign…
    Mr. Smith wrote the examiner is needed to “shed light on the circumstances” that led to the Energy Department offering the guarantee and the subsequent restructuring of the company’s debt. That restructuring made the repayment of government-backed loans a lower priority than claims of some private investors.
    According to court papers, Solyndra must pay $69.3 million owed to lenders led by Argonaut Ventures I LLC before it pays back some $527 million in loans that the government guaranteed…
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576580782270363282.html

    Wikipedia: George Kaiser
    George B. Kaiser born 1943 is an American businessman and chairman of BOK Financial Corporation. He is among the top 100 richest people in the world…
    Kaiser took control of Kaiser-Francis Oil Company in 1969. In 1990, Kaiser bought the Bank of Oklahoma, N.A. from the FDIC, the government agency that guarantees the soundness of the nation’s major savings institutions…
    Kaiser’s family foundation funded the National Energy Policy Institute, a non-profit energy policy organization located at the University of Tulsa whose president since its inception is former Alaska governor Tony Knowles,and whose director since January 2010 is former U.S. Representative Brad Carson…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kaiser

    from elsewhere:

    “The National Energy Policy Institute (NEPI) is dedicated to identifying economically and environementally sound solutions to the challenge of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and to building new businesses based on those solutions.”

    such an official name for an Institute that employs two people. bit like the Federal Reserve!

    11 March 2009: Dolan Media Newswires: Tulsa University lands National Energy Policy Institute
    With an $8 million outlay in September, the foundation created the institute under former Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles. It committed another $1 million Tuesday to TU for its support of NEPI, whose two employees will work in a residential tower under conversion to office space.
    Tulsa philanthropist George Kaiser said he hopes the institute develops rational, cost-effective recommendations for a national energy policy to reduce both America’s dependence on imported oil and its greenhouse gas emissions. By doing that, he said it also would improve the nation’s national security while reducing the power of hostile, “medieval” oil-producing governments…
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20090311/ai_n31430748/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    google news page has been placing CAGW stories at the bottom of the News page lately, which might suggest Google knows the public isn’t interested any more. here’s Combet with more insane studies for a non-problem:

    20 Sept: Ninemsn: Global warming preparations under scrutiny
    The federal government’s independent research body has been asked to examine what steps Australia must take to get ready for climate change.
    Climate Change Minister Greg says the Productivity Commission will examine what regulation and policy settings are needed to adapt to changes caused by global warming…
    The commission will examine what action is likely to be required of households, firms and all levels of government.
    Mr Combet said that even with a moderate degree of warming in the coming decades there were serious risks to Australia’s water resources, coastal settlements and biodiversity.
    “We cannot afford to delay action on adaptation because decisions we are making today will affect our vulnerability to climate change in the future.”
    The commission will hold public hearings before releasing a draft report for public comment.
    A final report will be presented to the federal government within 12 months.
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8304520/global-warming-preparations-under-scrutiny


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    My favourite windfarm story is actually not a windfarm. It was a single turbine purchased by a single, private owner, who had green stars in his eyes.

    It was on ‘Grand Designs’.

    The guy decided to build a new ‘eco house’ for his family, which was a brady-bunch joining of his children and a new wifes children, both from previous marriages.

    The money was tight, the budget was small. The house received no interior finishes and was bare painted besser block (breezeblock to the US people, concrete block to the UKers).

    However, the crowning glory of his house was not to be it’s concrete walls or limited headspace. It was 14,000 pounds worth of wind turbine to be installed out the front. It was serial number 00001 from a new company with a revolutionary new gearbox design, and he promised, with a great grin to the camera, that he would be energy self-sufficient from this one innovation in his eco-house.

    The build went on, problems were found, budget was overrun. The solar panels and solar hot water were deleted. But the wind turbine stayed in the plans.

    Finally it was erected. A massive white monstrosity mounted right next to the road, at least 3 times as high as the house.

    The local community objected loudly. This was not part of the planning scheme at all. It looked like the sort of town where you’re not allowed to paint your fence pink. They wanted it taken down.

    The planners had a sympathetic ear and allowed the turbine to stay. The owner claimed a victory. One wonders if someone had erected a massive white oil-drilling rig would they have allowed it to stay. One would presume not.

    Roll on for the final re-visit in the show as the house was completed and the family had moved in. It was extremely austere, in bad need of a few luxuries. The rooms had been downsized for cost purposes and the kids had to have mezzanine floors in their bedrooms to provide enough room for their bed and a homework desk. But the big white wind turbine was still out front.

    Kevin, the host of Grand Designs, asked how the wind turbine was going.

    The answer was sheepish. It hadn’t actually produced any electricity at all. The revolutionary gearbox used up more power than it made (well, duh). The gearbox was removed, but the harmonics of the structure changed with the gearbox gone and now it had to be stopped in wind over something like 15 knots or it would wobble itself apart.

    It was a gigantic white elephant. A 14,000 pound monument to green idiocy, stupidity and letting marketing and con-men divert a rational mind away from reality and into moralising fashion.

    His kids still had tiny rooms. The walls still had no plasterboard or panelling, just painted concrete like a stadium restroom or jail cell. And the gigantic white elephant sat out the front, still on a windy day.

    For fun, the turbine turned up on eBay and recently sold for 1500 pounds.
    Skyrota Wind Turbine – buyer removes
    The company that sold it to them went into administration and went bust taking all funds with it: Skyrota goes into Administration

    So the owner torched well over 13k, went through a lot of stress, upset his new neighbours (and presumably family) – and for what? To learn the hard way that windpower is a mirage, a dream? I could have told him that for free.

    This tells you all you need to know about windpower. Substitute this smae story for an entire national energy policy and you have the current state of windpower. There is a reason the Dutch abandoned the windmills for electric pumps powered by reliable sources centuries ago. It’s because it’s a diffuse, unreliable and costly source of power. And it’s certainly not ‘free’.

    The worst thing is that eventually all these companies will go bust. The taxpayer money will be gone forever. Taxes are a zero sum proposition – they can either go to hospitals, police, defence, roads, or they can go into the pockets of rent-seekers who sell lies dressed up as promises and then are lost forever when it eventually collapses and folds.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    janama @ 32 : all very well, but how many of these companies do you think are going to exist in 20 years time?

    There are plenty of pictures around of the rotting windfarms in Hawaii and California that have already reached end of life. There sure is no cleanup happening there. I’m sure the companies have long ago disappeared or been consolidated or wound up or whatever else. I’m sure big energy operators are shuffling each farm into a special purpose corporation to keep liability and problems at arms length.

    I’ll tell you who will pay for the cleanup – either nobody – they will stand rotting for decades, or the taxpayer. THe taxpayer will pay to put them up, pay to keep them operating, and pay to take them down.

    The only bright spot is that a wholescale public aversion to subsidies should appear once an investigative journalist decides to blow it wide open. It just takes one brave person with a camera, some editing skills and the nous to swim against the tide and do some digging.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Good story BRC but just to pick up a bit of terminology you use, “windpower is a mirage”. Let’s be clear : historically wind power was a powerful and important energy source that has driven much human endevour for much of our modern history. Wind power got Captain Cook to Australia, drained the sea from the Low countries and prevented countless stock losses in outback Australia. It is still an important source of energy in some places.

    Wind farms on the other hand are the point of debate here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    with so many of the carbon vultures lobbying small countries in the West Indies to adopt uneconomic renewables, it’s good to see Dr. Sharma speaking up:

    19 Sept: Jamaica Gleaner: Climatologist: Demand for more cooling will increase energy use
    Climatologist, Dr. Michael Taylor has made it clear that there will be an increase in the demand for cooling in light of global warming, yielding a necessary increase in energy consumption…
    “We depend on the cool nights to save our energy,” said Taylor, who also heads the physics department at the University of the West Indies at Mona…
    Taylor spoke at today’s sitting of the Energy Conference 2011, hosted by the Jamaica Institution of Engineers in conjunction with UWI and the University of Technology…
    Dr. Chandrabhan Sharma, professor of energy systems at the University of West Indies (UWI) St. Augustine, argued against a dependence on renewable energy, something he viewed as incapable of dealing with the demands of an energy system like Jamaica’s.
    Furthermore, he said global warming is a natural phenomenon related to solar activity and that global temperature increases are, in fact, the cause (not effect) of increased green house gases.
    Whether an increase in green house gases results in climate change, or vice versa, is irrelevant Taylor argued.
    The key, he noted, is not just the construction of renewable energy; rather it is whether— through the use of LED lights, water harvesting, the re-use of grey water, or renewable energy construction — that people take advantage of available resources in the mitigation of overall energy consumption.
    http://jamaica-gleaner.com/latest/article.php?id=32026


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    the global warming nuclear faction might soon decide it has nothing to lose in exposing the CAGW as a fraud:

    19 Sept: Reuters: Siemens partner biggest loser in nuclear exit
    Siemens Chief Executive Peter Loescher said on Sunday the company was giving up its nuclear power business including a planned partnership with Rosatom in response to the German government’s decision to quit the energy source…
    At the time, Siemens expected the nuclear market to have a renaissance as governments sought to cut carbon emissions worldwide…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/19/siemens-idUSL5E7KJ1AW20110919


    Report this

    00

  • #

    What I fail so utterly to see is this.

    Those older large scale coal fired power plants are seen as being the root cause of a perceived problem, that of the emissions of CO2.

    That’s no problem of those older style plants. They were built to ‘state of the art’ for the time they were constructed in.

    Now, they are seen as being inefficient.

    Every obstacle has been placed in the way of some of those plants converting to new technology ultrasupercritical operation which would mean that they burn considerably less coal, do that more efficiently, and consequently emit considerably less CO2.

    This actually is something that can be done right now, and in fact two of these plants, Mt Piper and Bayswater are seeking to do just that, mind you, with their own money.

    And yet every obstacle that there can be is being placed in their way.

    Then the Government approves three proposals, Coopers Gap Wind Farm, the Solar Plant at Moree, and the Solar Plant at Chinchilla. Proposers of those plants are only putting up half of their own money, and the Government is ‘chucking in’ the other half, incidentally around the same amount that it would cost for both Mt Piper and Bayswater.

    Those three renewable plants will deliver to grids in their areas barely 6.7% of the power that Bayswater and Mt Piper will deliver for consumers, and it can be up and running years before these three Renewables.

    And this is what this new legislation will deliver, Useless renewables that cost an immense fortune, half of it taxpayers money, deliver power for barely 6 to 7 hours a day, and have a life span only half that of the new technology coal fired plants.

    Absolute lunacy on a scale unimaginable.

    If anything similar to this was presented to the people it would be laughed out of existence, before the press conference was finished.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    There is a thread on WUWT about recent, very early snow falls in Europe ( and some are saying its occuring in the US as well). Yes, it’s weather not climate. But one of the comments is worth reading as it relates to the topic of this thread.

    Carl Chapman says:
    September 19, 2011 at 6:49 pm
    My theory is that the EU and the Global Warming Scam will collapse together. If the Euro goes first, probably because of Greece, then the EU elites will be so hated that Europeans won’t listen to their rubbish about Global Warming. Talking about using more debt to build windmills will just make people angry. When the Germans find out how much Merkel has committed them with guarantees, they won’t be listening to talk of spending on windmills. Or the scam could end first. This winter is likely to be very cold in Europe. Germany has shut down nuclear power stations. Britain relies on power from France as Britain has no spare capacity for cold weather. France’s nuclear power stations can’t supply France, Britain, Spain and Germany during a freeze. If there are extensive brownouts and blackouts this winter, no-one will be in a mood to listen to the EU elites. Talk of giving money to the PIGS while factories are shut and people freeze due to power outages will make people angry.

    Either way, this northern winter should be the end of the Euro and the Global Warming Scam. The scary bit is what the EU elites will do to hang onto power. Will they try a fascist power grab, silencing all criticism, as part of an emergency?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    “The White House was so smitten with their “great” work in helping Solyndra secure an over $500 million loan guarantee that it wanted President Obama to visit Solyndra’s headquarters.

    “In 2010 President Obama did in fact visit Solyndra’s California headquarters and in his remarks said this touting Solyndra: “the engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra.”

    “Then the roof fell in. In August 2011, Solydra declared bankruptcy and layed off over 1,000 workers.

    http://iceagenow.info/2011/09/solargate-half-billion-dollars-global-warming-drain/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Trigge

    On the ABC this morning I heard Julia arguing that the opposition’s Nauru solution was ridiculous because it was foolish to spend so much money for no effect.

    It’s a pity she cannot make the same connection with her ‘green energy future’ and the carbon (dioxide) tax.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Ross, #47, regarding Europe, I wonder how well wind turbines work after a night of freezing sleet leaves large deposits of ice on the blades? Best not be too close when it starts turning, even if it just shoots the ice off without self-destructing from the imbalance. Advanced technology, my a**s.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    GeeAye @ 43 : fair enough point.

    I will re-state.

    Cost-competitive wind power is a mirage.

    It took Captain Cook an awfully long time to get here. That’s the power of wind for you. Fine if you’ve got no specific timetable to work to.

    Wind is a great way to sail your boat, fly your kite, pump your borewater. It’s not an effective way to manufacture, heat, cool, power computer centres or any of the other million ways a modern econonmy has evolved requiring non-stop power on tap, 24 hours a day.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    As all those people who have invested in wind farms say:

    When the wind doesn’t blow, it sucks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Hanging 5h!+ on wind power is low hanging fruit, it’s just too easy to do.

    Getting the government to snap out of their stupor THIS WEEK and see sense and hold off on pre-emptive costly legislation in an area still under scientific inquiry which provably has no urgency behind it, yeah that’s the tricky part.

    Recent events have been quite demoralising.
    I’m increasingly of Joyce’s opinion that the High Court is the way to go, as long as there is some legally vulnerable chink in the Brown Knight’s armour.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    I see St Moritz just had a record one day snowfall for September. It’s going to be an interesting NH winter.

    Even more interesting will be the excuse, as it will be the fourth severe, and worsening, NH winter in a row.

    2008 – 2009 we were told “didn’t really happen”. It was just that everybody had got used to more mild winters.

    2009 – 2010 we were told was a “one in a hundred year event”.

    2010 – 2011 of course gave us the truly mind-boggling “global warming causes global cooling” meme.

    And just to confuse the issue, we had a “peer-reviewed, published climate science paper” blaming China’s burning of coal for the whole lot. Which is strange, since according to JuLIAR, the CSIRO and BoM (amongst others), burning the same coal down here in OZ causes global warming. Maybe the Chinese are burning it upside-down?

    So I wonder what this NH winter will bring?

    I’d have gone with “aliens altering the weather to punish us for poisoning the planet with plant food” but genocidal little green men from space have already featured in a recent “peer-reviewed published climate science paper”.

    Anybody got any suggestions?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Just saw the article about Swannie getting the Euromoney magazine Treasurer of the Year award… WTF? He took the country from a healthy surplus to a huge deficit in a coupole of years! The only reason Australia is faring so well is the fact that we are joined at the hip with China’s boom.

    This just lends more weight to my theory that European awards (think Nobels to Gore and IPCC for example, Obama after days in office) are a complete joke.

    I bet Keating (who was a decent Treasurer) is appalled at being in the same group as Swan… I imagine he would have a few choice words for the occasion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    brc;

    thanks for the rephrase – we all knew what you meant but I didn’t want wind’s positive contributions to go unrecognised. All hail wind.

    indeed wind power is for the patient and the tough. Can you imagine spending years of your life on a boat with bad food, no mattress and smelly men for company?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Memoryvault: #54

    Glad to see your smiling door once again!

    Perhaps the Warmistas will finally cotton to the fact that there is no such thing as an average global temperature, and that the two hemispheres actually have disconnected weather patterns. Or not – for that would imply that they actually understood that the air circulation was in different directions in both hemispheres, and we all understand that they never, ever, let the truth interfere with a good story.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    10 year ago, I figure out this “green” crap was totally inefficient to actually producing power for the amount of energy blowing through.
    It is designed for bulk harvesting and cannot sustain itself without massive subsidies.
    There is technology shelved as being too efficient and only a handful of engineers and CEO’s have seen this. The technology used pure science of looking into ALL the effects that achieve the torque for the most efficient interaction of machine and energy. It is waiting for a manufacturer(rare in this age)to develop.

    This economic system of profits has to fail in order for technology to advance.
    This has also effected our knowledge base in understanding the science of how this planet actually works for the mathematical calculation that misses a vast amount of factors.

    You have to remember, it is the government that pays for grants and has kept science confined into cherry picking how advanced our knowledge base is by the “consensus of useless science”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Rereke @ 57

    Yeah – good to have the old door back – dunno what happened there.

    As to the weather climate whichever, I’m still waiting for some “climate scientist” or politician to state just what the “right” temperature is, -

    - and where.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    hmmm!

    20 Sept: Big Pond: Abbott vows to scrap carbon scheme
    As debate continues on the carbon pricing legislation in parliament, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has vowed to seize emissions permits bought by business…
    ‘During the fixed-price phase of the carbon tax (from 2012 to 2015) I think we can close it down, and we will close it down without incurring the billions in liabilities that the (government) is talking about,’ Mr Abbott told Macquarie Radio.
    ‘It is typical of this government that they would try to booby-trap their legislation so that people couldn’t then repeal a bad law.
    ‘But we will … and if we need a double dissolution (election) we will have one.’
    Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said transparent and secure property rights were fundamental to any efficient and well-functioning market and would give investors certainty and confidence…
    As debate continued in parliament on the clean energy legislation, a member of Mr Abbott’s coalition team on Tuesday argued against the science of climate change.
    Former scientist Dennis Jensen, a Liberal MP, told parliament the planet was not warming and it was wrong for the government to use a ‘benign scientific theory’ as a basis to legislate for a carbon tax.
    ‘To put it simply, the carbon tax with all its regulatory machinations is built on quicksand,’ Dr Jensen said.
    ‘Take away the dodgy science and the need for a carbon tax becomes void.’…
    Meanwhile, modelling prepared for the Victorian government showed a carbon tax would strip $1050 from individual incomes and $660 million out of Victoria’s budget by 2015.
    Prime Minister Julia Gillard told parliament the modelling was flawed…
    http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2011/09/20/Abbott_vows_to_scrap_carbon_scheme_663977.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Joe Lalonde @ 58 says:

    “There is technology shelved as being too efficient and only a handful of engineers and CEO’s have seen this…..”

    Don’t tease, Joe. What is your secret?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    observa

    From the the first subsidised windfarm in Oz we got the usual last summer

    And please Joe @ 58, spare us the super efficient motor that runs on water or some such that the Oilcos are sitting on. Right up there with the everlasting light globe that Elvis is keeping to himself at present. New technology may well be just around the corner but largely it’s one of very costly R&D, then years of development and proving up to see if it can cut it economically in the marketplace. So many bright ideas, so few marketable products.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    memoryvault:
    September 20th, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    So I wonder what this NH winter will bring?

    Well, according to the weatherman, a strong La Nina. If that is the case then most of the US, with the exception of the west coast, will see a cold winter, again!

    Anybody got any suggestions?

    A fair and public trial for the ring leaders for crimes against humanity and, if convicted, public executions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Memory Vault,

    As to the weather climate whichever, I’m still waiting for some “climate scientist” or politician to state just what the “right” temperature is,

    Apparently it’s just whatever it currently isn’t.

    Is there a double negative in there?

    Anyway, I think Al Gore forgot to brief them on that little matter.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I see that a group of Scientists have been put on trial in Italy.

    Damages are being sought from the 6 panel member Scientists who, er, failed to predict the major Earthquake in L’Aquila in 2009.

    The panel of 6 Scientists analysed data from a number of minor Tremors and came to this conclusion:

    The experts had made it clear that it was not possible to predict whether a stronger quake would occur but had recommended stricter enforcement of anti-seismic measures, particularly regarding building construction.

    Now they are being put on trial, with large damages sought, as punishment it seems, $70 Million no less.

    Hmm!

    Sort of now puts Climate Change/Global Warming right into context.

    Warn of absolutely everything in the worst possible scenarios.

    If it doesn’t happen, then great.

    However, if it does happen, hey, don’t say we didn’t warn you, so there’s no need trying to get damages from us.

    They’re just covering their collective fundaments.

    I’m reminded of the boy who cried wolf!

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    Anybody got any suggestions?

    Yep………..”It may be cold where you are but trust us it is really hot everywhere”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    Dang nabit.screwed the punch line.

    It should read

    Anybody got any suggestions?

    Yep………..”It may be cold where you are but trust us it is really hot everywhere else”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    “Australian Constitution is Invalid – Ex – Solicitor Wayne Leonard: Vinny Eastwood Show 15/10/10 1/3″

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okzKTbVIOCU&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aKBbEZciKk

    If the Australian Constitution is invalid,so too are treaties made with the United Nations.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Sceptical Sam #61,

    It is an inversion of a turbine.
    This splits the energy stream into individual steams and harvests all the energy to 78% of actual energy being used.
    Current turbines suffer from centrifugal force blow back as soon as they start to move as the molecular structure shifts the density inside the material.
    This means a turbine blade needs different strength of energy at different points on the blades and ONLY the tips actually harnesses the current energy. This is why you will see many styles of wind turbine blades.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    Earlier this year, I thought for one ecstatic moment that common sense had broken out in the UK government – they cut the Feed-In tariff for large scale solar arrays by 80%. Result..? Developers dropped the idea like a hot potato – not that they were JUST IN IT FOR THE MONEY or anything as mundane as that.
    However – that was where the story ended – I thought that the government might – just MIGHT – cut the subsidies, Feed-In tariffs, and vast chunks of our money paid for NOT producing electricity, for windfarms – but no such luck. But then you have to remember that our Prime Minister’s father-in-law has a windfarm on his estate (he doesn’t live there, mind) from which he makes £1000 a day. So – no chance of reality breaking out any time soon..
    In the meantime, we pay for this ‘reverse Robin Hood’ situation in our energy bills…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony O'Brueb

    Problem with Firefox

    Fatal error: Cannot use object of type WP_Error as array in /home/nova/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/url-shortener/components/jz_shortener/lib/jzsc.shared.php on line 235

    Great work, Joanne. Keep it up.

    Tony


    Report this

    00