JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Wind farms only 80% effective at CO2 reduction (0% effective at temp reduction). UK to allow homes to stop turbines!

Wind power, cost, renewable energy, efficiencyIn the latest news about wind-generators, The Australian reports that a new Australian study estimates we wasted $70m on RET* certificates last year because of losses the wind turbines put on the rest of the grid. About a fifth of the CO2 supposedly cut by wind-farms was emitted by the rest of the grid as it ramped up and down trying to cope with the erratic supply from the on-and-off whirly-gigs.

If we double our wind-farms the losses are proportionally even greater (every extra wind farm is even more useless than the one before). With twice as many, all of the wind towers would only be 70% effective. But this is all a wild fantasy overestimate, since the point of wind towers is not to reduce CO2, but to reduce global temperatures, stop storms, and hold back the tides. The 3.5% reduction in total Australian electricity emissions changed global temperatures by 0.00C, hence RET on wind is 100.00% useless, accurate to two decimal places. The Clean Energy Council said they had no answer at all, and wouldn’t talk about it, except to say that Australians like “renewables”.

In other news in from the UK, the new majority conservative government says local residents will soon be able to block new wind farms (which they should have been able to do all along). That will mean no new wind-farms on land in the UK. Hallelujah. Praise be to UKIP for shifting the political landscape there back to something more sane.

Emission cuts due to wind power ‘not so big as claimed’

Graham Lloyd, The Australian

Joseph Wheatley analysed the output of 256 generators connected to the national electricity market last year. His research, funded by private individuals through the Association for Research of Renewable Energy in Australia, found that while wind provided 4.5 per cent of national electricity generation, it reduced emissions by only 3.5 per cent.

“This represents a significant loss of effectiveness,” Dr Wheatley said. His research found the possibility that wind power was 100 per cent effective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, as is the current basis for issuing renewable energy certificates, was not supported by evidence.

“The evidence in this study suggests that effectiveness in the national electricity market would fall to less than 70 per cent if the proportion of energy provided by wind is doubled from 2014 levels,” the report says.

Dr Wheatley is a graduate of Trinity College Dublin with a PhD in condensed matter physics from Princeton University. He has worked as a researcher at Cambridge University. A report of his findings has been submitted to the Senate ­inquiry into wind turbines and health issues.

The Clean Energy Council said it would not respond to the detailed findings in Dr Wheatley’s paper. But Clean Energy Council policy director Russell Marsh said “the vast majority of Australians support renewable energy and would be better served by objective scientific analysis rather than a group of grumblers brainstorming ­imaginary problems”.

h/t to Peter Lang, who wrote the post here last week on the effectiveness of CO2 abatement of Australian wind-farms and why they are an expensive, silly way to reduce CO2 (if you did want to do something so pointless). I estimate that wind turbines cost around seven times more than growing trees and using landfill gases — that’s roughly $100 per ton versus $14 a ton. For me the only point of discussing the cost of reducing a beneficial gas is to expose the hypocrisy. True greenies would placard and protest the bird-killing wind turbines, and demand studies on the effect of infrasound on spotted quolls. Where are they?

So it’s excellent today to get some good news from Big-Government UK. Congrats to the Brits.

UK Energy Minister Announces New Law Against Wind Farms

Date: 17/05/15 Tim Shipman, The Sunday Times

Local residents will be able to block all future onshore wind farms under new measures to be fast-tracked into law, the new energy secretary has announced. “It will mean no more onshore wind farm subsidies and no more onshore wind farms without local community support.”

Amber Rudd revealed she had “put a rocket” under her officials to “put the local community back in charge” of their own neighbourhoods.

No subsidies will be paid to operators of new onshore wind turbines under legislation to be included in the Queen’s speech. The legislation, which Rudd is “hopeful” will be law by the middle of next year, will ensure that consent for new wind farms will have to be given by a local council planning authority, which will be duty-bound to consult residents. Under current planning rules, big onshore wind farms are handled by a central government national infrastructure body that can ignore the wishes of local people. Rudd said: “It will mean no more onshore wind farm subsidies and no more onshore wind farms without local community support. – See more about the UK Energy Minister at GWPF.

The Sunday Times (paywalled)

h/t Climate news at GWPF.

Can anyone find a link to the original Wheatley report so I can add that, thanks?

UPDATE: Just-a-guy sends in “Wheatley’s Submission to the Select Committee on Wind TurbinesSubmission 348. Wheatley prepared his report for ARREA and he works at BIOSPHERICA RISK LTD. (The Biospherica link doesn’t work for me although listed in google!) I found the original copy on Wheatley’s web-site to be more readable than the one on the gov site which has likely been formatted for compliance with accessibility standards.   H/T to National Wind Watch.

UPDATE #2: Rauiri

The wind-turbine locals are made,
To endure what their owners evade,
Like the droning of rotors,
And the humming of motors,
Plus the odd detachable blade.

*RET = Renewable Energy Target

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (108 votes cast)
Wind farms only 80% effective at CO2 reduction (0% effective at temp reduction). UK to allow homes to stop turbines!, 9.1 out of 10 based on 108 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/l8zgncc

194 comments to Wind farms only 80% effective at CO2 reduction (0% effective at temp reduction). UK to allow homes to stop turbines!

  • #
    me@home

    As I read it, this report vastly overstates the effectiveness of wind power in reducing emissions of CO2. Where is the analysis of emissions from their construction, installation, maintenance and removal?

    570

    • #
      MudCrab

      This was exactly my first question.

      I haven’t seen the study being quoted, but my assumption here is that the entire study is based off the effectiveness of power generators already in service and ignore the total life costs of said equipment.

      Still, it does seem that wind is even more useless then I first assumed. I often put to my Green associates that ‘Wind farms don’t grow on trees’. Now it seems that even if they did, they would still be bollocks.

      432

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Spot on. As a former industry insider I think its fair to say I have ever seen the correct math presented in the media and what I do see makes wind farms look a LOT better as investments for the community than they really are. For energy generators, who basically get the money to construct and operate handed to them from tax payers, then sell off half or all of the asset after construction as well as keeping a slice of the generation income, wind farms are almost too good to be true. For the rest of us…. if there is a sillier way to spend energy money, I havnt seen it yet.

      180

    • #
      Stupendus

      there are no removal costs, I recently went to visit Mum in Cornwall (UK) Truro is surrounded by wind farms, twenty years ago there was only 1, the 20 or so origonal turbines are now just sitting there still and silent and unproductive despite the wind that blows, surrounded by newer bigger towers, the old ones are not being removed as no one wants to pay.

      111

      • #
        Terry

        there are no removal costs …. the 20 or so origonal turbines are now just sitting there

        Well in that case, it costs nothing to build an Aircraft Carrier either. So long as you don’t actually build it.

        60

    • #
      ColA

      And don’t forget the carbon generated clearing the land of carbon storing, oxygen producing, pleasant looking and SILENT environmentally friendly TREES.
      Trees that do far more for the environment than a woof woof wind whacker will ever do.

      80

    • #
      Uzurbrain

      AS a child, 60 years ago, every day I had to check the watering trough that was filled by a wind mill. For anyone that thinks, feels, wind is the answer forget it, FORGET IT, remove it from your mind. The wind mill was pumping water from a good well. There was no lack of water. However, at least three times a week I had to hand pump the water to fill the trough. Many times, and it always seemed to be in the driest, hottest days, I had to pump water every day for days on end and sometimes several times a day.
      Perhaps if those in love with wind turbines had to run on a treadmill to power their home they would learn the true value of a wind turbine. Yes it saves you some work. If we did not have the windmill I would have had to pump by hand every day, so it cut my work in half. BUT it is just not reliable. PERIOD
      I now work in the electrical industry, and see the exact same problem with every one of the wind turbines in our system. BUT, worse yet, just as the article above claims, they cost the ratepayer 4 times as much as the electricity that they DO NOT SAVE. A power plant is designed for maximum efficiency at 100% power. At 90$ output the efficiency drops to about 80%. At 75% output the efficiency drops to about 50%. (numbers vary by type of fuel etc. Coal plants are better than the new high efficiency CCGT units that are worse than these numbers at half power as you do not get enough heat for the steam side.) That means that when you get FREE electricity from the wind YOU are still paying about the same amount for the reduced power from the power plant – net effect no saving in fuel costs or CO2 generation.
      For more than ten years I have been trying to tell the problems of Wind turbines and always get the same dumb comments that I don’t know what I am talking about, or that they are more efficient today, etc. etc.
      They do not and will not work. Wind power is probably the oldest use of energy known to man (other than doing it your self). It outdates steam. Surely man would have figured out over 2,000 – 4,000 years how to make it better. It is not going to happen.

      70

  • #
    Robert O

    The major problem with wind turbines is that they only operate intermittently and as rightly has been pointed out you have to keep the steam turbines spinning, either inefficently on standby, or efficiently producing power for the other 70% of the time. As the same amount of coal is used either way there is obviously no reduction in carbon dioxide. The fact that people like renewable power comes at a high cost to everybody

    With a well run forest plantation it is possible to sequestrate about 5 tonnes of carbon per ha. per an. (Mean Annual Increment of 20m3/ha/an which is equivalent to 10 tonnes of dry wood, or 5 tonnes of carbon). This can be used for timber, furniture etc. and will remain out the atmosphere until it is either burnt or rots. People are still using recycled Oregon beams which came to Aust. in the late 1800′s.

    350

    • #

      I do not know where the idea that Australians like wind turbines comes from other than the imagination of greens living in the city far from any wind turbine. I thought they where a blot on the landscape when I first saw the monsters at Blayney in NSW long ago (1980′s)and so did all the people I met in the town. Then I saw the single (stopped) 5MW turbine in Cooper Pedy (around 1995). The people said there it was ugly and hardly ever turned so the diesel generators were used most of the time. A waste of money and a monument to stupidity.

      550

      • #

        I saw the Coober Pedy turbine in 2009. No movement and the locals report no output either.
        Remember: never walk backwards in Coober Pedy.

        70

    • #
      bobl

      Actually the figure is more like 100-500 Tonnes per ha. A well managed tree crop can easilly produce 10-25 tonnes of mass in the fruit alone let alone woody growth. Then the CO2 mass is 44/12 x the carbon mass, so this fruit alone represents sequestration of around 40 tonnes of CO2 per ha. (After accounting that about 1/2 the mass is carbon) now extrapolate that to a forest with uncontrolled growth, low inter-plant spacing compared to orchards and 3-4 layers of biomass.

      Grassland sequesters 15T per annum!

      80

      • #
        Robert O

        People often quote lots of figures and estimates for carbon sequestration, but what is the reality of native forest. For un-managed native forest, e.g. National Parks its less than 5m3/ha./yr. of growth which means about 1.25 tonnes of carbon, not a great amount. The same for the rangelands, but the real problem is what happens to the carbon. If it is not incorporated into the soil it likely will be burnt and the CO2 released which is counter productive, the same is true if the vegetation rots. I saw a TV program recently about rangeland management in the NT claiming carbon credits for burning the grass off earlier; seriously one has to wonder what idiocy will be next.

        20

  • #
    Denier 58625294

    The big question is are wind farms an even bigger lunatic boondoggle than desalination plants?

    340

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Way bigger. Desal plants work when you switch them on, and something useful comes out of them.

      280

      • #

        This is a good question. Which has wasted more money in Australia? Desal or wind? Desal plants are 100% useless if the dams are full. But Wind power won’t change the weather at all. Both cost billions. Tough call?

        401

        • #
          StefanL

          The Adelaide deal plant is insurance against a 3-year drought.
          Our dams hold only about a 1-year supply, and we can’t depend on water from the Murray (In a prolonged, widespread drought the eastern states will hang on to the water no matter what agreements are written on paper).

          170

          • #
            Leigh

            If you’d get the labor party and the greens out of the bloody way.
            You could build more dams.
            Has no one ever wondered why they continually add to the sewerage system and not to the water supply that flows into it?
            Every new connection to that water supply just amplify the problems in times of drought.
            It appears that the poiticians think, that as long as your literally not up to your knees in the proverbial, you can put with a drought or two.
            I’ve always subscribed to the adage that two half full dams have more water than one half full dam.

            211

            • #
              StefanL

              There are no more good spots to build dams in the Adelaide Hills and also there just isn’t enough rain.
              Have you had a good look at our local “rivers” ?

              41

              • #
                Leigh

                Probably a start would be Increasing existing dams capacities.
                It’s not beyond the engineers capacities.
                For the green save the planet fools, desalination plants are not the answer.
                Do they understand the massive amounts of power these beasts draw on to produce their “freshwater”?
                Power I might add, from solar and wind farms just isn’t going to do it.

                41

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            New Zealand’s got loads of water – White Water Rafting, YES! … But I digress.

            Why don’t some truly entrepreneurial spirits get together, and purchase some redundant tankers, and ship water across the Tasman? Our forebears shipped Ice from Newfoundland to New Oreleans, so it should be a doddle.

            The back-load might be a challenge. I can’t think of anything that New Zealanders might want from Australia … hmm?

            90

            • #
              sophocles

              That’s been proposed at least twice in my lifetime. All the water spilt from Lake Manapouri exits from the power station after being de-spun into Doubtful Sound. One of the proposals was to pump the fresh water into supertankers and ship to Adelaide. I cannot recall how the proposals foundered.

              It could be the cost of the Supertanker way exceeded whatever the water could be sold for, it could be the water was not as “fresh” as it was supposed to be (Doubtful Sound is an inlet from the salty Tasman Sea). Or Nature provided and ended the drought.

              Whatever, they never got off the seafloor.

              The back-load might be a challenge. I can’t think of anything that New Zealanders might want from Australia

              C’mon man, Think! Fill it up with Aussie sheep (they’re cheaper than NZ’s :P ) and drop them off in Saudi Arabia. Then load up with Oil …

              40

            • #
              Greg S

              We can always ship VegeMite on the back-load.

              50

        • #
          Yonniestone

          “Desal plants are 100% useless if the dams are full” another problem is Jo dams are no longer being built, the last dams built in Victoria was in the 1970′s, the continued stubborn reluctance of all governments since to not invest in increased water catchments is astounding, during the last drought here 1998-2009 the lack of water storage for the increased population was glaringly obvious my thinking is with a mothballed desal plant waiting for the next big drought and no increased water storage the authorities have gold plated water at their disposal.

          321

        • #
          Steve Borodin

          Do you really spell diesel like that in Oz? I’m only asking. No judgements here. Back here in the SDQ (Slightly Disunited Queendom) we do it ze German Vay – or else ve vill have ein short discussion!

          94

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Steve Borodin,

            Desal = desalination.

            Just-Sayin’! ;)

            Abe

            120

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Australians seem to have a problem with multi-syllabic words, of an order higher than three. Desalination comes in at five – bad karma, Reduce it to three, and we are all set to go, Mate.

            50

            • #
              Yonniestone

              Hey slow down mate, what’s multi-syllabic?, I’m an Aussie after all Whakka. ;)

              30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                That’s why it has a hyphen. It makes multi-syllabic look like two words, if you squint with the light behind ya.

                30

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Now you know why New Zealanders gets shortened to Kiwis.

              30

              • #
                sophocles

                … the bird with the long beak and a call which would scare the bejeezus out of anyone at night not familiar with it.

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                That depends on where it sticks it’s beak

                20

              • #
                Len

                In Vietnam during the War, I heard an American (Mercan) serously call the Kiwis “Kay One Double ya One”

                10

  • #
    JoKaH

    except to say that Australians like “renewables”

    How can I tell which bit of electricity that comes out of my wall socket is from a “renewable” source so I can like it better than the bit from the “non-renewable” source?

    340

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Plug in your TV or PC and switch on. If the screen has a green tinge, it’s a renewable source. :)

      291

    • #
      Bulldust

      Maybe it depends on the spin of the electron.

      120

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Yes, green electrons are all spin, and no power.

        90

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Actually, thinking about it, regular electrons flow from negative to positive. Green electrons just permanently hang around anything negative.

        130

        • #
          sophocles

          No, but they’ll slavishly follow anything positive to the end of the universe as they attempt to neutralise it. Hmm. That sounds familiar.

          JoKHaR:
          Alternative power electrons: so far Colour and Spin have been proposed, so I’ll add Charm as in: High Spin, Green Colour and Completely Lacking in Charm.

          30

    • #
      Fang

      “Most people like renewable energy!” Well, in that case, “THEY” can pay for it full!

      300

      • #
        Lawrie

        How come governments like the idea of user pays and then proceed to make you a user of a product that you would rather not have? I’m a great believer in choice so I can choose a diesel ute or a petrol car. Why must I have green energy? If the savers of the planet want to use green energy then fine; let them pay for it themselves and leave me to pay for my coal powered energy. That’s fair and we know the ALP/Green alliance is all about fairness, just ask Bill. I also know, because they keep telling me, that the Libs are all about choice so where is my choice Tony?

        170

    • #
      Anthony

      If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, it’s green.

      50

      • #
        Russ Wood

        But if it’s warm and fuzzy AND green, then you’ve probably opened up something rotten! erm – now that I come to think about it…

        80

  • #
    Peter Miller

    While this step to control onshore wind farms by the new minister Amber Rudd is very welcome, her common sense credentials on ‘renewables’ are still not yet proven as they are fears she was greenwashed while serving under the utterly incompetent ecoloon Ed Davey in the previous UK coalition administration.

    The concept of power balancing in regional electricity grids is a difficult one for the layman to comprehend, hence the idiotic comment of Russell Marsh of the Australian Clean Energy Council. It creates huge inefficiencies for the providers of the real power, namely gas and coal fired generators and as this article indicates, the problem is only going to get worse. An additional problem in the UK is that the electricity grids are required to take wind energy first at a fixed price, while coal and gas generators have to bid to supply electricity on an hourly basis.

    The result? No sane company is going to build any new power stations without a guaranteed price structure, which means no one is building them, just closing them Coming soon, “Welcome to blackout/brownout Britain.”

    This is how typical socialist theory, crafted by the unlamented last Labour leader Ed Milliband, actually works in practice.

    Greenies, socialists and ‘progressive’ thinkers all share one common trait in that they are only ever concerned about how something should work in theory, never how it would work in practice.

    370

  • #
    Bob Fernley-Jones

    According to Tallbloke the new British Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has totally inappropriate qualifications for the job, quoting in part:

    After graduating from Edinburgh University with a degree in history, she joined J.P. Morgan & Co., working in both London and New York. She then worked in venture capital in London, raising funds for small businesses. After working as a financial journalist, she founded specialist Executive Search and Human Resources consultancy Lawnstone Ltd,[2]with clients in Financial services and in Business media.[3] She also recruited the extras for the film Four Weddings and a Funeral.

    I find that rather interesting because back in the seventies I worked for a company that believed in moving its middle management around into new positions in which they had absolutely no known experience or aptitudes. I don’t think it made much difference really but it’s interesting. I actually still hold a cynical view that many departmental managers got there for reasons other than demonstrable managerial skills. (Erh, and much the same in personal observations in the Boardroom).

    140

    • #
      Bob Fernley-Jones

      Whoops. I should have added to my #5 that I think that Amber Rudd is one shrewd lady. I also hope that her leader Cameron, what now with a majority in the house, no longer toes the consensus crap that was probably forced upon him. (I have a dream)

      140

    • #
      Carbon500

      Chrisopher Booker, writing in the UK’s Sunday Telegraph, has great reservations about Amber Rudd. Apparently she thinks that the most important challenge is to limit global warming to under 2C, and that she has said “there isn’t a cigarette between me and Labour on getting a deal in Paris.”
      Booker goes on to say “Ms Rudd will remain signed up to all the measures by which the Department of Energy and Climate Change plans to ‘decarbonise’ our economy.”
      I await developments with interest.

      130

      • #
        Owen Morgan

        What Cameron should have done was abolish the absurd “Department of Energy and Climate Change” altogether. It was a creation of the much unmissed Gordon Brown and has always been a pantomime horse of a ministry, created for the benefit of a Brown loyalist, one Ed Miliband. Unless one subscribes to the notions

        (a) that any form of “climate change” is always and everywhere bad, by definition;
        (b) that any form of “climate change” is caused by the fraction of atmospheric CO2 which is man-made;
        (c) that any “solution” to the purported “problem” must involve switching from tried, tested and proven methods of energy production to tried, tested and demonstrably unsuccessful ones,

        the existence of DECC makes no kind of sense, which is appropriate in a way, since its first three secretaries of state (Milipede, followed by the convicted criminal, Chris Huhne, and then Ed Davey) also had a perverse talent for not making any sense. Linking a nation’s energy policy to a fashionable, but monumentally dubious, theory (note that Brown used the calculatedly ambiguous phrase “climate change”, not “global warming”) was putting a vital concern into the hands of ideologues. I don’t suppose expressing a contrarian point of view in DECC is something that happens very often, or is a recommended approach for the ambitious civil servant. Ironically, by throwing “climate change” in with energy, Brown explicitly uncoupled it from the environment, which has a different department altogether (DEFRA, created by Tony Blair, to replace the hopeless MAFF).

        Since handing DECC to the libdims was part of the coalition agreement in 2010, Cameron never had the option before to scrap DECC. Now that he has no need to appease the two-taxi-sized libdim party, Cameron has had and has blown the chance to structure Whitehall in a sensible way.

        60

      • #
        Bob Fernley-Jones

        Carbon500,
        That’s a bit of a worry! I’ve just read Christopher Booker’s piece, and he is usually right I think. (I feel sad for Britain)

        50

      • #
        tom0mason

        But can any of these politicians explain the figures?
        Explain all the additional costs to the consumer?

        http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ for the figures.
        Note how Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CGCC) has to track the windmills to smooth out all the variations, picking up the slack in output.
        Also understand that windmill operators are allowed to run diesel generators as a back-up. So figures for wind are really wind+diesel back-up.

        Time for a for cost/benefit analysis I think Mr. Cameron.
        Wind energy is free energy was the lie they advertized it as, so why the big cost?

        70

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    ” Praise be to UKIP for shifting the political landscape there back to something sane.” As a fully-involved Kipper, I thank you for the plug, Jo. To be fair, however, the heavy lifting on climate has been done by others, notably the Bish, Josh,many others too numerous to mention and most notably the electricity bills which have gone up by 67% in about 5 years thanks to Alarmist idiots and rent-seekers in British politics. This last really does have people asking questions about the validity of sustainable power.

    292

  • #
    Dennis

    Meanwhile, way out there somewhere in Union Labor and secret coalition partner extreme Greens land deals continue to be done, in Victoria for example where new wind turbine sites are being negotiated for, I believe, union super funds to invest in and others seeking to create wealth for stakeholders at the expense of electricity consumers and the economic prosperity of our nation.

    220

  • #
    bemused

    The answer my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.

    90

  • #
    Chris in Hervey Bay.

    I read somewhere, not long ago, I think in the WUWT comments, that a wind turbine will never in its life produce enough energy to manufacture another wind turbine of the same size and have it erected.

    Major advances in technology while going backwards.

    200

    • #
      richard

      from the cradle to the grave for the wind turbine-

      Fossil fuels used in the components of turbine.
      Fossil Fuels to make the components.
      Fossil fuels to transport the components to the site.
      Fossil fuels used to prepare the site, cut down trees, level the hill top, mountain top.
      Fossil fuels to build the road to the site, and used in construction of road.
      800 tons of concrete used for foundations of turbines.
      40 + lorries to take concrete to site.
      Fossil fuels used as back up , diesel generators on board turbines at sea as back up.
      Fossil fuels used for continued maintenance of turbine.
      Cleaning fluid used on Turbines that leech into the soil .
      On board oils that leak and leech into the soil.
      At the end of its useless life, fossil fuels used to dismantle and take away.

      I am sure I missed a few.

      240

      • #
        bobl

        Lots,
        Fossil fuels to dig up and refine all that neodynium, copper and steel (and the raw materials for the concrete) – especially electrowinning of the copper and the solid electricity (aluminium).

        Fossil fuels to clear the 15 Ha that the windmill needs, not to mention the loss of sequestration capacity of that land. Fossil fuels used in mowing and other land maintenance of that 15 Ha. Fossil fuels for the making, transportation and erection of fences, transmission towers and solid electricty (aluminium) wires used to transmit the energy to the grid. Fossil fuel used by the helicopters used to inspect the transmission lines even the fossil fuels needed to make those little danger – high voltage signs.

        101

      • #
        richard

        leach not leech but maybe leech is actually a better word.

        20

      • #

        But Richard, let’s not forget that we can get energy out of a wind turbine

        Burn them, make cement!

        72

    • #
      Spetzer86

      There’s the Google RE<C report on IEEE that basically says that: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

      10

  • #

    There’s something about wind plant performance which is not understood when just looking at the raw electrical power generation statistics.

    So, go to this link, which shows the Wind performance for Australian Wind Plants. Now, while you think I may have been selective here in picking this particular day, it’s just the first work day closest to today, which isn’t actually today. Why I have done this is because if I give the generic link for the site, it takes you to the output for the most recent rolling 24 hour timeframe. By giving you this link it shows the totals for a full 24 hour period from Midnight through the day and back to Midnight on one particular day, so I’m not cherry picking here, and if I was to be thought to be cherry picking, then I’m certain I can find a day when output is at its absolute lowest, so I’ve selected last Friday here, 15th May 2015.

    Once you reach the site click on the icon MW at the top right immediately above the graph and the black line shows total power output from the 3669MW of Nameplate for nearly all of Australia.

    In general, the average total output here for this day was around 600MW, which gives them all a total Capacity Factor for this day of around 16%, pitiful really.

    However, what I would like to draw your attention to is that time period between midnight and say 6AM, and after 10PM, when actual consumption is at its minimum for the 24 hour period, as most of us are tucked up safely in bed.

    Now, while I have picked this day, go ahead, select any day you like across the previous years even, and you’ll see that the Wind towers deliver probably their greatest amount during that period of time, while we all sleep.

    This is when all the Peaking power plants are shut down, only delivering their power when it is actually needed, from 6AM til 10AM and from 4PM until around 10PM, or for some of the major Peaking Plants most daylight hours.

    The only plants running during these hours when we sleep are the large scale coal fired plants, and it is those which deliver all the power being consumed during those hours, and they do not just shut down and start back up at a moment’s notice, so they run continuously, and in the main, supply their full rated maximum power. They will cover every need, that 18,000MW of absolute Base Load requirement required for 365 days of every year.

    All that wind power generated during these hours is in the main totally unused, just sitting there on top of consumption. Some may go from the South Australian interchange back TO Victoria, or perhaps Sth Aus may use less brown coal power FROM Victoria, debatable really, but most if not all that wind power generated during those hours is unused.

    It is however, still counted as actual generation and used in the stats to indicate totals for wind power, giving the false impression that Wind power is actually making some sort of contribution, which is erroneous and misleading.

    There’s no real way to calculate the actual impact wind might be making, and that is where wind power supporters have an advantage, the fact that they can use the total raw data to indicate that they really do DELIVER electrical power, when in actual fact, they’re not really doing that at all.

    It’s a con job being perpetrated on people who have no real idea what is actually happening, because there’s no way to actually prove it is useful.

    Tony.

    480

    • #
      James Bradley

      Tony,

      Great minds.

      You must have posted while I was still flicking back and forth checking the averages for the previous day before hitting Post Comment.

      80

    • #
      ianl8888


      … they [coal fired stations] do not just shut down and start back up at a moment’s notice …

      In my quite long experience, a good majority of the population do not know or appreciate this. Educated adults with degrees (and higher degrees)in Arts are quite astonished when informed of this. Quite a few simply don’t believe it

      I’d even go so far as to suggest that a majority of the city populations think that sub-stations are power stations. This may be improving in a fashion due to the endless dishonest meeja repetition of photos of cooling towers emitting black, evil water vapour – said towers are not to be seen in city/suburban sub-stations

      140

      • #

        In my quite long experience, a good majority of the population do not know or appreciate this. Educated adults with degrees (and higher degrees)in Arts are quite astonished when informed of this. Quite a few simply don’t believe it.

        Just ask someone this simple question:

        How do they make electricity from coal?

        and just watch the stunned look on their faces.

        Explain that what needs to be done is to turn the whole Rotor complex in the generator at 3000RPM (3600RPM in the U.S.) and then snap your fingers, one snap, 50 rotations.

        Explain that that rotor complex can weigh anything upwards of 600 plus tons, and tell them to try and imagine what it might take to make that rotate at that speed, and then keep it at that EXACT speed day in day out, and in the case of the Stanwell plant near here in Rockhampton, it actually did just that for 1,073 consecutive days, almost three years.

        I have actually been told to my face that I’m making it up.

        That kind of weight cannot just be ramped up and down at will. Even for major maintenance on the unit, the weight on the rotor shaft is so much that it is kept turning over at around 2 to 5 RPM, because to stop the actual generator without correct procedures in place will bend the shaft, making the generator useless.

        Tony.

        350

        • #
          Aaron M

          I knew it was big, I didn’t know it was ~600 tons doing 3000rpm. The torque required to do that….mindboggling amounts of twist.

          100

          • #
            ROM

            As Tony constantly points out, some of this main basic electrical generating equipment is Big as in BIG!
            “Big” way beyond what most folk without a heavy engineering experience can ever imagine.

            Not steam this time but hydro when things go wrong as in seriously and very wrong.

            In the Siberian Bratsk River’s Sayano- Shushenskaya Dam disaster on 16th August 2009 a hydro generator and it’s turbine broke loose and all of it’s 1600 tonnes mass was blasted out of it’s concrete and steel well and tossed many meters into the air in the main generating hall by the force of the 212 metres of water head, more than the safety limit of 197 metres head, above it.
            75 workers in the generating hall were killed.

            For photos of the destruction ; The Sayano-Shushenskaya dam accident

            For the more technically interested and a good eye popping read, the gory mechanical details of what went wrong, why and a big “How it all went very wrong. very fast”!
            Fatal failures: Siberia’s hydro disaster

            100

            • #

              As you say ROM ….. BIG

              The image at this link shows a Francis Turbine, Just the blades are in the water flow.

              The image at this link is the generator driven by the turbine. This is a 700MW generator.

              There are 35 of these at the Three Gorges Hydro Plant.

              Tony.

              110

            • #
              ROM

              Correction; the dam is on the Yenisei river, not the Bratsk.

              The Yenisei is the biggest of the three immense Siberian rivers that drain Siberia that flow into the Arctic Ocean, the others being the Ob and the Lena

              40

        • #
          toorightmate

          Tony,
          These are the same folk that can “see” all of that carbon dioxide coming out of the cooling towers.

          100

        • #
          pattoh

          Staggering really when you think of the bearings to take those masses at that angular speed especially around the hot bits.

          Imagine the liability insurance for the designers, manufactures & fitters!

          30

        • #
          tom0mason

          I was asked (on a different blog) about power generation, and why a large coal generator could not just be adjusted to take care of the variations from wind/solar.
          As the guy was the usual non-technical Green lovie.
          I gave him the short answer — thermal and mechanical inertia of a few hundred tons of metal spinning at several thousand rpm is difficult to just ramp up and down in parts of a second.

          He went off grumbling that I must be making it up…

          50

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            I think its worth calculating the inertia of a 100kg greenie on a 20 kg push bike at 20km/h, compared to the energy of a muti-tonne hydro turbine….

            30

    • #
      Chris in Hervey Bay.

      Tony,
      I have concerns about this one paragraph.

      “All that wind power generated during these hours is in the main totally unused, just sitting there on top of consumption. Some may go from the South Australian interchange back TO Victoria, or perhaps Sth Aus may use less brown coal power FROM Victoria, debatable really, but most if not all that wind power generated during those hours is unused.”

      One thing we must remember is that the “Grid” is always in balance, i.e. Capacity is always equal to Demand, within a per cent or less.

      There is no energy that is pumped into the grid that is un-used. If it was, the grid voltage would climb beyond acceptable limits.

      If the wind turbines are pumping in an extra 600Mw, the voltage on the grid would climb, this would be sensed at the power plants and the exciters on the generators would back off and reduce the magnetic field in the generator, lowering the voltage output of the generator and thus reduce the current output. This reduced load would tend to allow the generator to speed up beyond the 3000rpm, the speed governor would throttle back on the steam supply and keep the RPMs at the set rate. With reduced steam usage, the drum pressure on the boiler will rise and then the fuel supply will be reduced. If, of course, the drum pressure rises too quickly, excess steam is vented and bypassing the steam turbines. If the reduction of load is too great and too fast, the safety’s on the boiler will lift.

      So, in effect, with the injection of 600Mw into the grid from the wind turbines, slightly less coal will be burnt.

      The reverse is true also, if the wind turbines shut down suddenly.

      This is the major cause of grid instability, and one can see why with all these components closely linked.

      I spent my working life with instrumentation and controls, design, maintenance, and installation and the above is a simple working system. Doesn’t take into account of automatic tap changing transformers, feed back loops, feed forward controllers and the like.

      And BTW Tony, I do read your stuff, in both places, and enjoy your work.

      160

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Chris:

        I think that a lot of excess production is diverted into pumped storage rather than stressing the system as you outline. I am not saying you are wrong, merely that the controllers like to keep that for a last short term adjustment.
        In the case of SA Wind much of any excess is going to be sold at a loss via the inter-connectors into the Snowy and Tasmanian hydro schemes. Much as in Europe where excess German supply winds up in the Norwegian, Swedish and French pumped storage. (Yes, could also go into the Swiss & Austrian ones especially when they are being PAID TO TAKE it).

        I would be interested in how the newer coal fired, boiler drum free but higher temperature (hence higher pressure) more efficient types handle sudden fluctuations. I suppose we will find out when Germany has blackouts.

        110

        • #
          Chris in Hervey Bay.

          Hi Graeme,
          I was going to mention the pumped storage factor, but I was trying to stay on message that all inputs to the grid are “used” which includes just that.

          Also, I think there might be a misconception out there that the Generator RPMs change to suit the loads when in fact, only the excitation varies. Thus, a generator can be off line and still spinning at 3000rpm and still in sync with the grid. Actually, the generator can come back on line immediately as demand dictates, it is the boilers ramping up is the problem. And they have a real problem backing off with all the latent heat in the fire box.

          Oh, and just commenting on some of the above posts, the 600 tonne bit is a bloody big rotating electro magnet !

          80

        • #

          Chris,

          I take your point, but also, what needs to be remembered here is that in any one area, wind power, even when running at a high level, is still less than a couple of percentage points of the total power generation at absolute maximum of the total generation for that one grid area.

          Here’s where some wind supporters again will (most usually unintentionally) mislead people by quoting the Overall total from Wind for the whole of Australia.

          Thanks for making that point you have here. The more I do this, the more I learn.

          Tony.

          170

          • #
            Chris in Hervey Bay.

            I agree Tony,
            With 600Mw of wind power going into the grid last Friday, they probably burnt 2 buckets of coal less at each coal fired plant !

            (btw, I’m off to PA soon)

            80

            • #
              Dave

              I know nothing about this
              But

              A mate of mine works at Tarong, says the coal doesn’t stop, nothing changes in any minute of every hour of every day.

              His manager said we are now giving away the power for nothing while a bit of solar comes into the market and waiting for the gas generators to cut out.

              He said it’s all in the distribution and $, but where he works in the coal feeders, it’s the same every day & night.

              There is no slow down, the grid still takes the electricity?

              I’m lost on how the distribution works

              60

              • #
                Chris in Hervey Bay.

                Dave,

                Your “mate” wouldn’t detect the changes in the feeders now, changes in the feed is very small.

                But ask him about the times in 1980/1/2 when the drag lines at Moura were taking BIG lumps of electricity out of the grid and how they coped a Tarong !

                Another problem we had to fix.

                50

              • #
                Dave

                Thanks

                Always wondered about the variations in GW output of Coal in UK?
                Here
                Sometimes total of 3GW over a week out of all the coal generators in the UK
                I suppose the variation in Queensland would be on a small scale & coal usage would vary only slightly compared to this?

                So if voltage required is less, there is less load on the turbines from the generator (reduced magnetic resistance maybe???) and a slight reduction of coal.

                Have you any articles on this coal reduction & increase for supply in power stations.

                Fascinating stuff really.

                But overall, these massive things have to balance for wind mills & solar panels?

                Can a system as large as SE QLD operate with out a base load power station? How would you control wind & solar in isolation, what would give the 50Hz etc. with no control at the distribution point?

                Hope this makes sense

                40

              • #
                tom0mason

                Dave,

                The main thing to keep in mind is this is a grid connected system. No generator on line is a law unto itself, all generators on line affect each other to some extent. That said no generator can run at a lower voltage or different frequency from the rest. They are all regulated at all times for these requirements. To do otherwise would destabilize the grid causing dangerously large fluctuations that would damage not only the consumers equipment but the distribution equipment, and possibly the generator itself.

                Now do you see the problem with the wind generators? The grid and its maintenance is job #1 for the system to work. The load that the generators ‘see’ will vary the current they supply. When less power on the grid is required the voltage and frequency is maintained but less current goes out.

                Remember also that this is (usually) a 3 phase system where the loads on each phase must be also be balanced.

                That said, often generator frequency and voltage sag during high demand and rise again as the load eases. The allowable range of this planned variation is kept within tight national regulated limits.

                Today electricity companies are pushing for smart metering not because it is good for the consumer, but because it makes it easier for the generator requirements to match the load.
                In times past electricity was reliable because of a large excess in generating capacity, today the boffins and bureaucrats believe they can do more with less by removing some of your control over consumption and giving it to smart metering. Smart meters that signal to the rest of your ‘smart’ home when to consume or not, and when more generators should come on line.

                My question with ‘smart’ metering is who, and what, will stop the electricity companies rigging the system for maximum profit (from consumers) by using this ‘smart’ control of my household appliances? As far as I can see there is nothing in writing.

                30

              • #
                tom0mason

                Correction -

                NOT
                That said, often generator frequency and voltage sag during high demand and rise again as the load eases. The allowable range of this planned variation is kept within tight national regulated limits.

                Change to –

                That said, often on the grid (and therefore all generators on it) the frequency and voltage are allowed to sag during high demand and rise again as the load eases. The allowable ranges of these planned variations is kept within tight nationally regulated limits.

                10

            • #

              Chris,

              no idea where you’re going, but if it’s anywhere near Harrisburg, the State Capital, try and do a drive by of Three Mile Island. They have a viewing area off the side of the road where you can park, and just look across the River at the plant, barely a hundred metres away, still with the one unit in full operation.

              Tony.

              20

              • #
                Chris in Hervey Bay.

                Hi Tony,

                I try to spend 3 months each year in PA. I stay in Newtown, about 40 miles north of Philly., near Washington Crossing on the Delaware River, not too far from Princeton.

                Been in Harrisburg quite a few times and seen the Three Mile Island Plant.

                You might like to pop over to https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRqEzTCl0IpmcYgFcBBxdBA

                It is the best way to exchange photos and stuff while I’m away.

                Unfortunately, Homeland Security will only let me stay 3 months. Last time I came home they told me not to come back as they reckoned I brought all the “white global warming” with me from Queensland. That was this year, Jan. to April.

                Chris.

                50

        • #
          Peter C

          Graeme,

          What pumped storage?

          I have wondered about that. As far as I know so far there is No Pumped Storage capacity in Australia. Hopefully I am wrong and someone can elucidate.

          20

          • #
            Rollo

            “Australia has three large-scale pumped hydro facilities in Queensland and New South Wales, operating for more than 30 years: Shoalhaven (240 MW), Wivenhoe (500 MW), and Tumut 3 (600 MW).” …according to http://reneweconomy.com.au/ .

            The greens love hydro as it can act as a smoothing capacitor for intermittent crappy wind power, but they don’t want to build more dams, go figure.

            91

      • #
        Chris in Hervey Bay.

        Maybe I should have said, “Output always equals demand.”

        40

        • #
          tom0mason

          Chris in Hervey Bay.

          “One thing we must remember is that the “Grid” is always in balance, i.e. Capacity is always equal to Demand, within a per cent or less.”
          or
          “Maybe I should have said, “Output always equals demand.””

          NO!
          The capacity of the grid is dynamically adjusted for the expected load plus some reserve. When the grid control get this wrong you know with brown-outs, or bills rising as excess fuel is burned.

          The one thing to keep in mind on a properly maintained grid system is all generators will be maintained at the same voltage and frequency at ALL times
          As the load power requirements vary then the CURRENT from the grid (and therefore the generators) varies.

          20

          • #
            Chris in Hervey Bay.

            tomomason,

            I think you are agreeing with me.

            I am a bit puzzled with this sentence.

            As the load power requirements vary then the CURRENT from the grid (and therefore the generators) varies.

            00

            • #
              tom0mason

              Chris in Hervey Bay.

              1. The grid voltage is fixed within very tight limits.
              2. Basic electricity power formula is –
              Power = Amps x Volts

              So if the voltage can not move on a varying load power requirement the current must .

              A grid connected system is basically a ‘stiff’ voltage source (voltage does not vary). However the current can vary any ware it wishes (within reasonable limits)

              20

              • #
                tom0mason

                Correction not ‘the current can vary any ware it wishes’ but the current can vary anywhere it wishes.

                Some examples
                ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
                Power= Amps x volts
                thus Amps = Power/volts

                If your fancy new LED light bulb only needs 2.3W of 230vac mains power (but still illuminates like a 40W tungsten filament, lasting hopefully 500 times longer as it cost 250% more) it draws a meager 0.01 amps.

                230vac supply is required to power a 230W heater, then 1 amp is drawn or flows.

                230vac supply is required to power a 2300W (2.3kW) heater, then 10 amps is flows.

                230vac supply is required to power a 230000W (230kW) to a large industrial plant, then 1000 amps must flows.

                With any, or all, or none of these loads on line voltage will not (must not) appreciably reduce (sag). If it does then other parts of the grid will probably be adversely affected.

                10

      • #

        Read again what Chris mentions in Comment 11.3, and how the extra wind power might have those cascading and probable detrimental effects on the overall grid.

        Total generation must always be higher than actual consumption, so there is always a small amount of power available over and above what is being used, and here in Australia total yearly generation is around 215TWH, while actual consumption is around 200TWH, so that extra is about 7.5%. In the U.S. it comes from vastly more huge figures and is 6.2%. (4066TWH/3830TWH)

        So, now looking back to Chris comment at 11.3, there’s always going to be a level of power above actual consumption.

        Sometimes we get so locked into using the TOTAL numbers we forget the breakdowns for individual areas as I then went on to mention in my reply at Comment 11.3.1.2

        Most of the wind power generation in Australia is in South Australia, (S.A.) and what is needed to be stressed here is that the whole of the State of S.A. only consumes around 3.5% of ALL Australia’s actual power consumption. So, SA has a a large wind component, and a small coal fired component, with just the one plant at Northern of 400MW. The extra for S.A. comes from the Victorian Interchange, and Victoria is all brown coal. So, when the wind is generating in S.A. they would just consume less via that Vic Interchange.

        However, in Victoria, NSW, and Qld, wind power is very small when compared to their huge coal fired component, so even if wind is doing well in those other States which have huge consumption, then the wind component would be tiny by comparison, probably well under 1%.

        So, looking at the totals for ….. everywhere then if wind is doing well, then it could be a high percentage, say, close to it’s maximum of 3.5%, which is still well under that overall 7.5% extra. (total generation versus total consumption)

        When those totals are looked at (as totals) then it might seem to be problematic, but looking at it from the viewpoint of separate grid areas on a State by State basis, it’s not much of a problem at all. There will always be excess generation, and there always HAS to be that excess generation.

        So, high wind generation will only ever cause problems where there is a high wind component, such as in S.A. and that is remedied via that Interchange with Vic. and for S.A. they are only coming from a small base of that 3.5% consumption.

        I understand here how this might not be easy to see, but sometimes, even subliminally, and even happening to me, we tend to look at the totals and not the actual breakdowns by smaller areas.

        Tony.

        PostScript – Incidentally, let’s use that fake comparison that has been popularised to show wind is roooly roooly great ….. that bogus phrase of ….. number of homes supplied. That excess generation figure over and above actual consumption, power not being used, around 15TWH here in Australia. That is enough to supply around 2 MILLION homes.

        40

        • #
          Chris in Hervey Bay.

          Tony,
          The grid is always in balance as I said above, the part you are missing is the “Power Factor” of the load which can contribute to major losses in the distribution system.
          I didn’t want to go here as the discussion will rapidly go beyond the scope of the comprehension of other readers here.
          If the power factor is “1″ , i.e. voltage is in phase with the current there is no losses due to power factor. As soon as the power factor is reduced below 1, Unity, the losses rapidly climb. At a power factor of say .7, for every 1000 watts that is metered, there is only 700 watts of useful work done.

          In most instances, the load on the power plant is “Reactive”. This is somewhat offset as the transmission lines are capacitive and this tends to pull the power factor back towards unity.

          Take a large installation of say 1000 fluro lights, that load is, or would be totally reactive if the capacitor was not fitted in each fitting. If each fitting was rated at 100 watts, that would seemingly be a 100,000 watt load. If the power factor was .7, you would be metered for 130,000 watts while only getting 100,000 watts of light.

          So, at the other end, at the power plant has to burn more coal to produce more useful work at a power factor .7 than what it would have to do if the power factor was unity.

          Power companies try very hard to keep the power factor at unity, makes the plant more efficient, burns less coal for a given output. Switch yards and substations have very large banks of capacitors that are switched in and out as required to try to keep the power factor at Unity.

          Unfortunately, most of the load is reactive and never brought back to a power factor of 1. So, we can see that the output of the power plant is always greater than what is being consumed. And it doesn’t take much of a shift in power factor to have a 7% difference in what is being generated and what is being consumed.

          So, with power factor losses and transmission line losses, power plants are always pumping out more than what is being consumed. But it still remains, the grid is always in balance, power in = consumed + losses.

          40

          • #
            Chris in Hervey Bay.

            OH, if anyone wants to read more, here is the link to more stuff about the “unknown” !

            Pictures too.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor

            10

          • #

            Aha!

            I realise that this is off topic, but it is still of interest here.

            This takes me back. Elec Tech 2, the Maths associated with electrical power, and my major subject responsibility when I was a technical trades instructor with the RAAF.

            Rather than just leave it at that, I thought I would actually try and explain some of this, because my perception is that readers at Joanne’s site here might actually be interested. The difficult part I have here is to attempt to make it understandable.

            Power Factor is the ratio between True Power and Apparent Power.

            It is usually between 0.8 and One, but most Australian States require that any Industry or Commercial consumer must be between 0.9 and 1.

            Some of you may wonder why this is important, and all of this relates to complex vector diagrams, and their resolution.

            Most Load in Australia, and here I’m talking large single consumers, all Industry and most Commerce are either inductive (L) loads or capacitive (C) load, and rarely do the two equal out, and consumers are either one of the other.

            True Power has the voltage and current in phase. (the horizontal axis)

            Apparent power is the end resolution of vectors 90 degrees out of phase, inductive a vertical one side of zero, and Capacitive a vertical line the other side of zero, depending upon a series or parallel circuit, mostly parallel. The term CIVIL applies here where C is capacitive, I is Current, V is Voltage and L is Inductive.

            You first need to work out the reactance of both the C and the L, and from this work out the total circuit impedance, also a three line vector diagram with a resultant for total Impedance and from this, using the standard voltage you can work out total circuit Current which is in the same phase as the Voltage, along the horizontal which then you can use to calculate the True Power.

            Then, from the reactance of L and C, you can work out the current for L and C using the standard Voltage, and from those make a three line vector diagram for L, C and total circuit current.

            Resolve the C and L vectors (the vertical), and then do the vector diagram resolution for that relating it to the horizontal. (The standard voltage and the calculated Current flow through the total circuit Impedance) This gives an angled vector away from the horizontal, either below or above the horizontal.

            This angled line gives the apparent Power total, and the power factor is the cosine of the angle between the horizontal and that angled line, hence it is always less than One.

            Now, as that angled line is actually longer than the horizontal line, the angled line being the hypotenuse, then you can see that the actual power consumption is the greater amount.

            What the consuming entity is charged for power use is True Power, the horizontal and lesser amount, while in actual fact they are consuming more power, the Apparent Power, that angled and larger amount.

            That is why most States decree that the Standard is between 0.9 and One, so that those consumers pay as for close as possible to what True Power consumption really is.

            So, in a way this is why power generation must always be greater than consumption.

            I only hope I have explained that in a manner you can understand.

            Tony.

            50

          • #
            tom0mason

            Chris in Hervey Bay.

            There are some basic ‘tricks’ that power companies can do to shed excess reactance from the grid. One of these ‘tricks’ is to alter the speed to the generating plant. All the other generators on the grid will ensure that this plant stays (exactly)on frequency,(the generator windings act like a motor, forcing it back on frequency) the result to a generators running in this fashion is that the generated current is not exactly in phase with the voltage. Depending on whether you run them fast or slow alters the phase relationship, thus inductive or capacitive loading can be simulated.

            Also note that if you run a generator set at slightly lower output voltage then all other generators on the grid will sink current to it. This generator will be a real resistive load, with it’s windings getting hot. This can be useful in the short term when load balancing the grid.

            These methods becoming less in favor these days but were done for many decades. They are very delicate operations to carry out well, and nearly always cost the generator companies excessively in fuel cost. These methods do also imperils the generator and the grid system to some degree, especially if anything major were to go wrong.
            These days electricity companies and large industries plan major load regulation together for the good of the grid system. Also real capacitive and inductive loads can be switch on and off the grid as required.
            Very steep and expensive cost tariffs are applied to the bills of renegade customers that put unreasonable loads on at inconvenient times. They may even be disconnected all together.

            20

        • #
          tom0mason

          But Tony there is nothing wrong with a grid controller putting all generators on all times. All that would happen is everyone has a very reliable electricity supply, but everyone’s bills would go up massively as excess fuel is burned.

          Surely the reason for Load Prediction charts and tables are drawn up so that a minimum (plus reserve) is on line at the correct time in anticipation of the expected load thus making the system more cost efficient.

          00

          • #
            Chris in Hervey Bay.

            I wasn’t going to go here either, but here goes.

            Each boiler, no matter where it is, has a “Sweet Spot”, i.e., say for a boiler that is rated maximum output of 500,000 pounds of steam an hour. It will be found by commissioning tests, that its sweet spot is say between 440,000 and 460,000 pounds an hour. Go above or below the sweet spot and you go rapidly into areas of inefficiency.

            So, in a power plant, at times of low demand, with say 4 generators on line and 4 boilers running well below their sweet spots, it will become prudent to take one generator off line and allow the remaining 3 to take up the load and ideally finish up with 3 boilers running in their sweet spots.

            The 4th generator is still kept spinning at 3000 rpm, using very little steam and fuel. The excitation is reduced to a point where there is little current leaving the generator. Hot stand-by. The boiler is kept on hot stand-by and avoids thermal shock.

            This 4 generator on spinning stand-by, is still in sync with the grid and later, when demand increases, excitation is increased to bring the generator back on line. The boiler will ramp up too, with the automatic controls.

            None of this stuff is as simple as it first appears.

            As Tony said above, “how do you make electricity from coal ?”

            50

    • #
    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Tony that’s such a clear explanation.

      I had a senior insider say to me early in my work on windfarms “oh none of the power is needed, we just basically feed it in when the prices are highest”. So I did my reading and sure enough he was right as the figures Tony has presented show.

      Most of these installations pay for themselves in 3 to 5 years. That means around half of the current windfarms have already paid back their investment to the constructor (who probably used tax payers money to build them anyway). Do you see your power bills dropping from all this near zero cost generation in the market?

      Its a giant con job from start to finish using tax payers money.

      90

    • #
      Stupendus

      but Tony, If the power is not used where does it go?
      does it just wizz around the wores slowly losiong energy? does it cost us to “get rid of it”?

      20

      • #

        Think of it like this.

        All of NSW and Queensland are sitting down watching a tight first half in the State of Origin game.

        At Half Time, everyone gets up and goes and puts on the jug to boil water for coffee.

        There’s a huge spike in power consumption.

        That electrical power has to be available at the grid. If it’s not there, then, poof, the power goes out.

        The same applies on the bigger scale.

        Every morning, people get up out of bed, turn on the heaters (in Winter) make their breakfast, do the morning chores.

        Around the same time, work and school is starting and power consumption across the whole Country begins to ramp up. Extra trains are running. Etcetera etcetera.

        The same happens around 3/4/5PM when school gets out and people leave work for home. Now, while ‘some’ power goes down in the workplaces and the commerce sector, (shops and schools closing down for the day) residential consumption ramps up as people get home, do their chores, the loads of washing and drying, cook their dinners fire up the heaters or coolers, etcetera etcetera.

        ALL that extra consumption during those periods has to be catered for.

        They have a relatively good idea on an average overall usage rate, so the grid controllers task those smaller plants to come on line to top up the grids during these periods of time, and this is referred to as Peaking Power, the peak periods of power consumption, and the AEMO, the Australian regulator classifies Peak Power as 6AM to 10PM.

        They MUST have enough power at the grid to cover all that usage, and what might be consumed over and above that, like half time at the Origin.

        So there is always an excess power available at the grids.

        Overnight, those monsters, the huge large scale coal fired plants which cannot ramp up and down just hum along as they always do, providing that huge amount of power which is required absolutely all the time, that 18,000MW.

        When extra is needed, then those other plants come on, so there is always power at the grid enough to cover every use.

        You don’t have to get rid the extra. It just sits there waiting to be consumed, and if not, then it’s not used at all.

        But, it HAS to be there. Ready and waiting.

        Tony.

        50

        • #
          toorightmate

          Tony,
          Wake up to yourself. Everyone knows that the sun shines brighter and the wind blows harder at peak demand times.

          20

  • #
    James Bradley

    I find this link interesting:

    http://energy.anero.id.au/wind-energy

    Just go down the right hand side to ‘Daily Wind Power Graphs’ (usually only the previous couple of days to choose)

    Then go to the graph and pick specific states or sites or combinations of them then choose either % or MW produced for the nominated period.

    I’ve watched this since Christmas and I’m seeing averages of no more than 18% produced daily.

    Pretty pi$$ poor performance considering that we are paying for 100% wind through subsidies and a further 82% for conventional back-up.

    I’d say that if Lomborg was to do a cost benefit analysis it would be a lot more economical to subsidise coal/gas fired plants and scrap renewables.

    160

    • #
      StefanL

      And note the misleading colour scale of the icons on the map. Designed to look very “green”.

      A more rational scale would have the colour scale reversed, so that red means bad (very low % output) and green means good (high % output), and black for zero output. Then on most days the map would be a sea of black, red and amber !

      I pointed this out to the author some months ago, but nothing’s changed.

      130

  • #
    TdeF

    Unpredictable, unreliable, unstorable and never available. What is not to like about Wind power?

    The chance that the alleged 3.5% supplied by windpower is at a place and time it is required is very unlikely. How much extra capacity is required just to cope with fluctuations in wind power and does this actually exceed the power created? Did the whole world just pay a trillion dollars for nothing?

    Imagine if the money used to create 220,000 windmills had been spent on real energy research into alternative fuels, thorium, fusion, radioactive material storage or how other metals like aluminum to get us off the carbon cycle.

    It is all about what science ignorant politicians understand. (except for Margaret Thatcher). Are there any politicians who are not just lawyers? How many lawyers are even numerate? Can they even do their own tax returns?

    So the governments keep building windmills and tide generators and solar panels and hot rock machines in the absurd hope that some fine day these will replace coal.

    If scientific development was left to politicans, especially communist Green politicians, we would all be sitting in the dirt and arguing about the merits of the wheel. Never in the history of man has so much money been wasted.

    How else would Australia have a dead wombat specialist as chief climate scientist? Europe is covered with these useless things, in their thousands, even into the water. I guess the Egyptians built the pyramids. There were as much use.

    331

    • #
      Robert O

      The reality is that renewable energy is a croc in terms of supplying industrial power. But the debate is about the politics and vested interest. Governments get their advice from the bureaucrats, their own advisors and the lobbyists representing various parties. Amongst all of these are there many who have a good understanding of the production and distribution of electricity? Are the wind people going to tell the governments they usually can only provide power, say 16%, of the time and you still need coal fired power to keep up with demand at other times, and you still will burn the same amount of coal?

      As to the need to cut CO2 emissions anyhow because it won’t alter global temperatures an iota is another political debate anyhow.

      40

      • #
        TdeF

        Waterwheels and windmills were used for grinding grain and abandoned instantly once people had steam engines. What is needed for any manufacturing is steady power. Electronics, lighting, communications needs steady power. This is not what windmills do.

        Yes, everyone would love sustainable free steady power. Voters are not being told the plain truth about windmills or solar. Without storage, casual energy is so inconvenient and intermittent as to be useless even if it was free. The Green dreamers want to take us back to medieval times. It is nothing to do with CO2.

        70

        • #
          TdeF

          To explain why wind cannot replace fossil fuels, can you imagine wind powered cars or trains?

          You sit there and wait for the next wind gust. Sometimes for days. You can also only drive in windy areas where you do not want to go and at times you do not want to be there, at say 3am. The airconditioning or heating also only work when the wind blows. Now that’s a Green car. Lemon color.

          With solar, you know you can only drive in the middle of the day but not in the city or wooded areas or mountainous areas or on cloudy days or in winter. Otherwise a great idea. For heating and airconditioning the same applies.

          These ultra light cars which could not tow anything or carry much would also be very expensive. How could anyone resist? At least they would be quiet, apart from the screams of the trapped passengers.

          40

          • #

            You don’t need to imagine cars. Steam replaced wind for ships quite rapidly. Also there are technologically advanced aircraft that have no motors for most of their flying but they are only good for a bit of fun, just like sailboats nowadays, during the day when the weather is right.

            20

  • #
    pat

    ***Big business, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has been pushing for a deal amid concerns companies would be burdened with exorbitant power bills.

    huh!

    18 May: Sky News: AAP: Clean energy potential unlocked by deal
    A bipartisan deal on a pared-back renewable energy target could unlock Australia’s ‘massive’ clean power potential.
    The lengthy political impasse which has hamstrung the sector was broken on Monday after the federal government retreated from plans to impose two-yearly reviews of progress towards the 2020 target.
    The concession, signed off by Prime Minister Tony Abbott late last week, paves the way to slash the target from its legislated 41,000 gigawatt hours to 33,000GWh.In return, Labor agreed to the Clean Energy Regulator monitoring the scheme with annual statements on its costs and progress…
    Both sides have agreed to further discussions on what should be in the reports.Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane expects legislation to be before the parliament in the next three weeks.’The reporting system is really all we wanted,’ he told reporters in Melbourne…
    ***Big business, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has been pushing for a deal amid concerns companies would be burdened with exorbitant power bills.
    Labor’s environment spokesman Mark Butler blamed Mr Abbott’s ‘reckless attack’ for transforming Australia’s sector from an attractive investment option to an industry on the brink of collapse…
    Labor will look at boosting the 2020 target if elected to government at the next election, likely in 2016…
    The government is standing firm on the inclusion of wood waste fuel as a renewable source and will present legislation in that form to parliament.Labor will ‘strenuously’ oppose the move, but the government is confident it can secure sufficient Senate crossbench support. http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/05/18/bipartisan-deal-finally-struck-on-ret.html

    51

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    14 May: UK Telegraph: Faulty wind turbine couple win landmark payout that could open floodgates for compensation
    Retired Terry and Gail Beaumont’s dream of self sufficient life and energy income dashed by malfunctioning turbine
    Retired Terry and Gail Beaumont paid £40,000 for a wind turbine with a dream of having a self-sufficient life and earning £250,000 by selling electricity to the National Grid.
    But the couple, who run a small-scale alpaca breeding farm, saw their investment dive after the turbine was blighted with malfunctions and the supplier went bust, leaving them with an “expensive garden ornament”.
    However, the pair has now won an out-of-court settlement from the firm’s insurers that lawyers say could be the first of many…
    Other customers also had problems with the same 10kW turbine and after the blades from a turbine at a neighbouring farm came off and embedded in a wall the company switched off all 170 models for safety reasons.
    When customers launched legal action against Evoco, the company was forced into liquidation…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11606311/Faulty-wind-turbine-couple-win-landmark-payout-that-could-open-floodgates-for-compensation.html

    Wired & other pro-renewable websites are spruiking the following, but Californian public TV KCET is questioning the technology:

    VIDEO: 15 May: KCET: Chris Clarke: You Should Probably Be Skeptical About This Bladeless Wind Turbine
    Society desperately needs to find ways to generate power other than burning fossil fuels, but some alternatives cause environmental damage of their own. Case in point: large wind turbines. The spinning blades of modern-day wind turbines, whose tips can travel at speeds of 150 miles per hour or more, pose a significant risk to birds…
    Here’s a video in which Vortex Bladeless execs explain the very basic concept underlying their product:
    I say “very basic” because the video is almost completely devoid of the kind of technical information that would allow anyone knowing a little bit about wind energy, electrical and mechanical engineering, or even basic science to evaluate whether the company’s turbines will actually work…
    In other words, it’s not so much that oscillating vane technology can’t generate power: it’s just uncertain that it could generate power for very long without breaking down. And frequent breakdowns mean increased cost of energy…
    We’ll be watching the results of Vortex Bladeless’ testing — or as much of those results as the company makes available. But the history of renewable energy is littered with ideas that sounded too good to be true, some of which would need to violate the laws of physics to work as advertised…
    http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewire/commentary/you-should-probably-stay-skeptical-about-this-bladeless-wind-turbine.html

    81

  • #
    Ruairi

    The wind-turbine locals are made,
    To endure what their owners evade,
    Like the droning of rotors,
    And the humming of motors,
    Plus the odd detachable blade.

    222

    • #
      Peter C

      Too true Ruairi,

      The owners of wind turbines, in most cases, live far away from their investment.

      70

      • #
        Gee Aye

        True of any small investor in a big investment. Anywhere.

        12

        • #
          James Bradley

          True, Gee Aye,

          But there is also the other perspective in the example of the ACT Govt who is only too happy to embrace a 90% renewable target as long as the wind farms and solar farms are in NSW.

          80

          • #

            That is not true at all; that is a characterisation of yours and the target is not contingent upon locations of energy generators. The farms are private ventures with ACT money in support with the usual complex contractural arrangements. Even though I don’t know the details of contracts, the private investors are choosing the sites and making their choices based on financial as well as practical reasons. There is nothing to exclude an ACT site being chosen – indeed the NSW sites are as close to the offices of the assembly as many potential sites in the ACT. In practical terms, a lot of the ACT excludes itself due to residential, national parks, aviation, research (astronomy, NASA) sensitive land

            23

            • #
              James Bradley

              Gee Aye,

              Not a characterisation at all, just rather convenient.

              50

            • #
              James Bradley

              Gee Aye,

              If I were to make a characterisation though, I’d say you seem a little emotionally attached which I would point is is uncharacteristic.

              30

              • #

                Dammit… I honestly was going to preface my comment with “I’m not an apologist but…”, but deleted because I thought it lame and would require justification. I have no attachment or investment in whether these decisions or their outcomes work or not, apart from the usual interest as a member of the community.

                As an aside, the ACT has bugger all power generation on its land (google for details) – the solar farm for uriarra and a gas fired proposal never happened. Another solar farm and a wind farm within ACT borders are possible – time will tell. I think the biggest present producers are using gas from landfill.

                02

              • #
                James Bradley

                Gee Aye,

                I observed the political backlash for the ACT Labor Govt from residents of Uriarra and concluded that the political advantage for the ACT Government of its unrealistic renewables target is not worth the political heartache in it’s own backyard, better to let NSW deal with the heartache and the ACT accept the advantage.

                50

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Sounds like a classic NIMBY to me.

                40

              • #
                Gee Aye

                the private investors moved on and are fnding that NSW BYs are just as much NIM

                11

  • #
    Thomas in Scotland

    My take on the effectiveness of wind farms reducing CO2.

    Using the relevant figures as in:-
    http://www.renewableuk.com/en/renewable-energy/wind-energy/uk-wind-energy-database/figures-explained.cfm
    we find that the onshore installed capacity in the UK is 8,146 MW as at the end of 2014 which would be expected to save about 7.9 million tons of CO2 per year.
    This last figure is entirely within official estimates.

    We need to:-
    a) Examine the correctness of the calculation of 7.9 million tons of CO2 ‘saved’.
    b) Put this into perspective on a world basis

    a) The 7.9 million tons ‘saved’ takes no account of the CO2 expended to achieve that ‘saving’.
    In business terms:- Profit = Income less Costs

    The 7.9 million tons is equivalent to the income. In order to assess the effectiveness of wind farms in saving CO2 it is necessary to determine the amount of CO2 expended to achieve that ‘saving’. i.e. the ‘costs’

    The following will all lead to the production of CO2 in order to build and operate the wind farms:-
    i) Construction, transport and installation of the turbines
    ii) Connection to the grid
    iii) Need for back-up. Because wind is intermittent it requires back-up, usually from gas turbines which can be brought on line quickly.

    The implications of this last ‘cost’ are important.
    There are two types of gas turbine – Open Cycle Gas Turbine (OCGT) and Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT).
    The OCGT consists of a single turbine where the hot exhaust gases are expelled to the atmosphere. It has an efficiency of about 40% and can be started quickly.
    The CCGT consists of several turbines in a cascade system where the waste heat from the previous turbine is used to preheat the following one. It has a higher efficiency of about 60% but is designed to run continuously.
    Because of the rapid response required for back-up, the less efficient OCGT must be used. Calculations have shown that if we had no wind farms and instead generated the (limited) electricity they produce using CCGTs, then because of their high efficiency the total amount of CO2 produced would be no more, and possibly less, than that produced by the current arrangement.
    (It should be noted that in the USA as a result of cheap gas from fracking replacing coal for generating electricity, in the last 5-6 years CO2 emissions have fallen by some 7%.)

    b) Current annual world production of CO2 is about 35,000 million tons of CO2
    7.9 Million tons is 0.023% of this.
    If all of these values were to remain largely constant then the projected temperature increase of 2 C⁰ by the year 2100 would:-
    i) Be reduced by 0.00046 C⁰
    ii) The time of reaching the 2⁰ increase would be delayed by 7 days
    iii) At a cost of £23,000 million*** for each of those 7 days.

    ( *** Based on current production of 20 million MWh from onshore wind farms at a cost of £95 per MWh.(This being the price the government currently pays the wind farm operators) i.e. Cost per year is £1,900 million, or £161,000 million for 85 years)

    100

    • #
      Carbon500

      Thomas in Scotland: This was my view on the subject in a letter I sent to our Member of the European Parliament a year or two ago. He wrote back and told me, among other things, that my descendants would be ashamed of my views.
      He wasn’t re-elected – interesting, that!
      I wrote:
      “The enclosed data from the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES) published in July 2013 (p133) shows that wind energy currently produces slightly less than 5% of electricity generated in the U.K.
      Renewable UK, the wind power energy trade association, claim that each turbine saves two thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. This figure is in broad agreement with other internet sources. Earlier this year there were just over four thousand operational turbines in the U.K., making a total of eight million tonnes of CO2 ‘saved’.
      This appears impressive, yet on a global scale is effectively zero because the total amount of CO2 from all sources in the atmosphere is some three trillion (3,000,000,000,000) tonnes, and the eight million saving is a vanishingly tiny fraction of this (0.000003, or three millionths).
      Moreover, atmospheric CO2 is increasing at an average of about 2ppm a year – that’s 16 billion (16,000,000,000) tonnes, an amount which clearly massively overwhelms any savings make by the U.K.’s wind turbines, or indeed any erected elsewhere, for example in America.
      In summary:
      1)There is no evidence that global average temperatures have risen since the late 1990s.
      2)Nonetheless, CO2 (a trace gas, present in the atmosphere at about 0.04% or 400ppm) continues to rise. This along with the lack of a global temperature increase as described supports the view that CO2 does not represent the threat to mankind it was once perceived to be.
      3)The ‘saving’ of CO2 per turbine is essentially zero.
      4)The erection of wind turbines continues unabated, with scant regard for the heritage of the British countryside.”

      131

    • #
      Rollo

      we find that the onshore installed capacity in the UK is 8,146 MW as at the end of 2014 which would be expected to save about 7.9 million tons of CO2 per year.

      In “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels” Alex Epstein states that 542.3 tons of iron and steel are required per megawatt of wind power, as compared to Coal which requires 35.3 tons or a mere 5.2 tons for natural gas.

      So for 8146 MW we would need approx 4.5 million tons of steel . Assuming 1.9 tons of co2 emitted for each ton of iron/steel gives us 8.5 million tons of co2 just to set up the wind farms. Have I got this right(someone please recheck my arithmetic)?

      50

    • #
      Axelatoz

      The CCGT (combined cycle gas turbine) systems that I know of incorporate a steam cycle turbine system at the the exhaust end. The additional steam cycle allows an uplift in overall efficiency as it utilises medium grade (about 550Cdeg waste heat) but the steam cycle increases the load response time if output needs to ramp up. This type of plant supplying base load power is capable of overal efficiency of about 54%. Open cycle gas turbines (OCGT) typically operate at about 34% overall efficiency but can respond quickly. A typical modern ultra super-critical coal fired system burning black coal has an overall efficiency around 45%. Typical 80s design coal plants operate at about 38% efficiency. Thomas you are absolutely correct that in the absence of hydro pumped storage, you are left with inefficient open cycle gas turbines (in Australia we have several of these plants but the operators can only afford to operate them at absolute peak electricity prices, otherwise they burn cash) to control the fluctuations in wind farm output.

      30

    • #
      toorightmate

      Thomas old mate,
      The saving of 7.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide is really impressive (Oh Yeah).
      Get the old slide rule out of the drawer and advise us what that means in terms of the 5 BILLION tonnes of coal mined each year.
      Nasty stuff, eh? Other than making steel (if it has caking properties), all it does is produce a sh*tload of low cost power for the world.
      However, POTUS does not believe African, Indian and Chinese people are worthy of this low cost power.

      30

  • #
    pat

    11 May: UK Express: David Scott: Beach on Hebridean island ‘vandalised’ by wind turbine firm
    ISLANDERS have gone to war after a landowner began work on an “illegal” road for a controversial wind turbine.
    Neil Smith sparked fury after using landing barges to bring in construction equipment at Gallanach beach on the Hebridean island of Coll.
    Residents watched in horror as rock pecker machines were driven across the pristine white sand and began channelling a route through the cliff face.
    Mr Smith, director of Gallanach Green Generation Limited, has permission for a single 252ft turbine. But work on the plan stalled last summer when he lost an appeal to bring in equipment along the island’s single track road. Locals believe he is now carving an alternative route.
    Argyll and Bute Council planning officers visited Mr Smith on Thursday and ordered him to stop, as no planning permission has been granted. But on Friday residents complained that they could hear the rock peckers in action late into the night.
    The chairman of the council’s Oban, Lorn and the Isles Area Committee, councillor Roddy McCuish, said yesterday: “I am absolutely devastated at the vandalism that is taking place on the Isle of Coll at the moment. This is environmental vandalism and it can’t continue…
    Fellow councillor Neil MacIntyre said: “We have told him not to do any more work, there is no planning permission. It’s a disgrace, to destroy a beautiful area, it’s very sad.”
    More than 100 of the island’s 137 inhabitants signed a petition against the 750kw wind turbine.
    Mr Smith secured planning permission, but with a condition requiring a plan, agreed by the council, before the island road could be used to transport materials. Resident Pat Graham said: “It’s an absolute travesty.
    “There is no Crown permission to land these barges and bring all the stuff off.
    “There is no planning permission to put a track in from the beach to the turbine site, which is 500 metres from Gallanach beach…
    http://www.express.co.uk/scotland/576357/Beach-on-Hebridean-island-vandalised-by-wind-turbine-firm

    15 May: KMALand: Fire damages wind turbine near Westboro
    (Westboro) — A wind turbine fire lit up the night sky over parts of Atchison County Thursday evening.
    Westboro Firefighters responded to the fire at a turbine owned by Iberdrola Renewables located 3/4ths of a mile west of Highway F and 3 1/2 to 4 miles west of Highway 59. Mark Manchester is Atchison County’s assistant emergency management coordinator. Manchester tells KMA News flames were highly visible upon arrival…
    “As we got closer, we were able to see there was quite a bit of flame coming from the top portion of the turbine where the blades attach. We were advised by Iberdrola not to approach the turbine, just due to the safety factor, because there was a lot of debris that was burning and falling off.
    “One of the blades ended breaking and falling off after we left,” he added. “It was a pretty good scene there for a while.”…
    “Fortunately, due to the rain we had lately,” he said, “and there was no wind last night, we didn’t have to worry about the debris that was falling down catching anything else on fire, and spreading out.
    ***We just monitored it for a while–Iberdrola had their officials on the scene, and they advised us for a while that we could return. They were going to monitor it, and start taking care of things on their end.”…
    http://www.kmaland.com/news/fire-damages-wind-turbine-near-westboro/article_19110a14-fb17-11e4-a3d0-d706e29fea02.html

    ***and if Iberdrola were not able to get there?

    40

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Pat, the Isle of Coll – I know it well. It was our family’s favourite summer holiday destination. We used to rent the district nurse’s house while she took her sabbatical on the mainland. The overnight trip from Oban on a McBrayne’s steam ship was the highlight! What a wonderful, unspoiled, windswept island it is. I trust the locals (still only 137!) are successful in stopping this vandalism. Maybe Tony’s new law might fix it! Such a long way from Oz but still vitally important in the overall scheme of things.

      20

  • #
    Tim

    “That will mean no new wind-farms on land in the UK.”

    What about the EU target for the UK of sourcing 32 per cent of their electricity from renewables by 2020? Surely they can’t let a little thing like democracy get in the way.

    100

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    The only simple and effective way to deal with wind, solar, and biofuel energy sources is to eliminate all subsidies and let the “free” market choose the best energy sources.
    It works with automobiles, airplanes, and other things that have not been subsidized at times.

    120

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Or if you wish to fight back with taxes, develop a “grid un-stability” tax and apply it to all electricity energy sources. The grid instability tax could then be made higher and higher until minimum costs were achieved for maintaining a stable electric power supply to the grid.

    90

  • #
    pat

    14 May: Platts: Jeff Ryser: Warming weather in California exposes vulnerabilities of wind power
    Is it the first signs of a serious problem for wind power generation?
    Data shows a significant drop-off of wind power sales in California due to warm weather, which caused a drop in wind velocities. Is it possible that wind farms that so many believe will help mitigate the warming of a changing climate will instead be impaired by that very same warming?
    The initial numbers that have emerged are striking.
    First, analysts have estimated that wind speeds in the first half of the first quarter in California were off by as much as 20%, or more, from normal averages…
    Now, the first quarter sales of wholesale wind power that owners of wind farms are required to report to the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are in, and the numbers are stark…
    Wholesale power sales from wind generators in California in the first quarter of this year fell an eye-opening 32.7% compared to sales in the first quarter of 2014…READ ALL
    http://blogs.platts.com/2015/05/14/warm-weather-california-wind-power/

    71

  • #
    pat

    14 May: Renews.biz: Wind crash link to altitude, lighting
    The US National Transportation Safety Board said low-altitude flying and a non-functioning nacelle light are the probable causes of a collision in April 2014 between a small plane and a wind turbine in South Dakota that killed four people.
    The pilot and three passengers died when a single-engine Piper flying at night crashed into the blades of a turbine at NextEra Energy Resource’s 40.5MW South Dakota wind farm…
    The investigation revealed that the pilot was familiar with the area and with the wind farm. The light on the turbine that was struck was not operational at the time of the accident, and the outage was not documented in a notice to airmen…
    The turbine was the fifth in a string of turbines oriented east to west, then the string continued south and southwest with an additional 13 towers.
    “If the pilot observed the lights from the surrounding wind turbines, it is possible that he perceived a break in the light string between the wind turbines as an obstacle-free zone,” said the NTSB…
    http://renews.biz/88486/low-flying-lighting-cause-wind-crash/

    worth reading all the following:

    17 May: BangorDailyNews: Paula Moore: Wind power isn’t making the big impact its champions claim
    The Maine Renewable Energy Association recently released information from a white paper to clarify the 2013 benefits of wind power in Maine and predict future benefits in 2020. Unfortunately, the association’s press release touted at least one simplistic conclusion: Wind power theoretically offset the CO2 emissions from 94,000 vehicles in 2013. If only wind power could offset vehicle emissions.
    To state the obvious, wind power never will offset emissions from vehicles, though that would be helpful because much of the CO2 in Maine — and the U.S. — is produced by vehicles.
    The point of wind power is to offset emissions from traditional power plants. How much CO2 did Maine wind power offset from power plants in 2013? Not much. ISO New England, the entity responsible for managing electricity across the six New England states, reported CO2 emissions from power generators in 2013 were 40,901,000 tons.
    By comparison, as estimated in the Maine Renewable Energy Association white paper, Maine wind power generated 27.8 percent of its nameplate capacity to offset an estimated 490,000 tons of CO2. That’s about a 1 percent offset. No wonder the Maine Renewable Energy Association chose to use a theoretical analogy instead of the real but puny 1 percent figure…
    (Paula Moore is a retired assistant professor in the University of Maine School of Education)
    http://bangordailynews.com/2015/05/17/opinion/wind-power-isnt-making-the-big-impact-its-champions-claim/

    61

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Is climate change making us stupid? I fear that the answer is ‘yes.’ This problem is exacerbated by politically correct climate change orthodoxy, enforced by politicians, advocates and the media in an availability cascade, which is destroying our ability to think rationally about how we should respond to climate change. As a result, we have created a political log-jam over this issue, with scientists caught in the cross-fire.’

    Judith Curry

    92

  • #
    ROM

    There is another aspect to wind power that is NEVER brought up or discussed anywhere because so few know about it which is exactly how the wind farm troughers / scammers want it to remain.
    I originally drew up the following comment for Judith Curry’s Climate etc blog but she has changed to a system where any wannabe commenters have to go through a registration process and use passwords so as I commented there only rarely [ and got a couple of complimentary remarks from Judith, a pretty rare event for her to remark on commenter's posts. ] I have sadly refrained from commenting there for the present.

    What with building treadle feeders for chooks and flogging them at the local markets to help supplement the pension plus thinking about some of the subjects on Jo’s blog plus writing my “War & Peace”  length comments up [ with all the lousy grammar included ],plus a few other projects this almost 77 year old doesn’t get much time to get involved in other blogs.

    Wind turbines

    The source for this information which is based on the Danish experience with wind energy is similar in its conclusions to a USA analysis of the same wind turbine energy use which I have seen at another source some time ago.

    The basis of information below is to be found at;

    A Problem with Wind

    The use of grid energy by non operating turbines is found here on the same site; Energy consumption in Wind Facilities

    One item that seems to be consistently overlooked in wind turbine discussions is the amount of power drawn from the grid by the turbines when they are not operating due to low wind conditions or are stationary and not being operated for the moment.
    Turbines need to rotate the blades regularly to prevent creep in their FRP [ Fibre Reinforced Plastic ] composite construction and the immense weight of each blade.
    Plus the loads on the main shaft and it’s bearings requiring a regular rotation to prevent bowing of the shaft, a problem also found in very large ship’s propeller shafts plus plastic deformation in the bearings from the weight of the blades and hubs when they are stationary.

    Items such as keeping lubrication oil warm enough in those high nacelles, keeping nacelle dehumidifiers operating, warming blades in freezing conditions, keeping the electronics operating, rotating the turbines into or out of the wind direction and various other housekeeping duties all of which require considerable power to be drawn from the grid when the turbine is not operating and to keep the machinery and electronic and electrical internals that 30 to 50 tonne nacelle [ plus another 35 to 40 tonnes for the blades ] in an operating condition.

    The wind turbine industry is exceedingly cagy about even mentioning that they draw considerable amounts of power FROM the grid to maintain their turbines when they are not actually operating.
    Figures I have seen suggest somewhere up around 8% to 13% of the productive output of a wind turbine might be drawn back from the grid to maintain a non operating wind turbine.
    Whether that power draw down from the grid is ever paid for by the turbine company is another very relevant question for which I have yet to see an answer.

    Thjs possibly would have been a very valid point to place before the Inquiry but I assumed that somebody somewhere would have done this.
    If not then anybody connected to the Inquiry might like to take this above point on board as another factor never revealed or admitted to anybody who isn’t closely involved with and taking the tax payer’s hard earned without any qualms as troughers and scammers are renown for .

    There are a couple of other points in this article , one of which I should have thought of myself as it is so obvious as it is a big destroyer of performance in gliders and one which is equally very telling in severely impinging of a wind turbine’s operating efficiency and that is the collecting of bugs on the leading edges of the b lades which really knocks the aerodynamic performance of an aerofoil to hell.
    So much so that the serious competition pilots use bug removers that automatically and constantly move right along the leading edges of the glider’s very high technology wings to scrape the bugs off.
    And this is at some thousands of feet of altitude, not down amongst the swarms of bugs and insects within the first few hundred feet of the ground and it’s swarming wild life of every description.

    In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged.

    Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more.
    Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%.

    [ quoted ]
    [ Included here is a a list of wind turbine's components that need a constant supply of power either from it's own output or from the Grid if it's output is not sufficient or it is stopped. ]

    Could it be that at times each turbine consumes more than 50% of its rated capacity in its own operation?! If so, the plant as a whole — which may produce only 25% of its rated capacity annually — would be using (for free!) twice as much electricity as it produces and sells. An unlikely situation perhaps, but the industry doesn’t publicize any data that proves otherwise; incoming power is apparently not normally recorded.

    &

    *Wayne Gulden has analyzed the daily production reports of a Vestas V82 1.65-MW wind turbine at the University of Minnesota, Morris, from 2006 to 2008. Those records include negative production, i.e., net consumption, as well as daily average wind speeds. The data suggest that the turbine consumes at a minimum rate of about 50 kW, or 8.3% of its reported production over those years (and which declined 2-4% each year).

    [ The American site ; http://windfarmrealities.org/?p=1594 ]

    Also from “A Problem with Wind Power”
    [ with references ]

    Noise

    The same West Virginia writer found the noise from the turbines on Backbone Mountain to be “incredible. It surprised me.
    It sounded like airplanes or helicopters. And it traveled.
    Sometimes, you could not hear the sound standing right under one, but you heard it 3,000 yards down the hill.”
    Yet the industry insists such noise is a thing of the past. Indeed, new turbines may have quieter bearings and gears, but the huge magnetized generators can not avoid producing a low-frequency hum, and the problem of 100-foot rotor blades chopping through the air at 150-200 mph also is insurmountable.
    Every time each rotor passes the tower, the compression of air produces a deep resonating thump.
    In addition, the difference in wind speed between the top and bottom of the rotor creates a rhythm in the “swishing” of the blades through the air.
    The sound is projected outwards, so that it is actually fairly quiet directly beneath the turbine, but farther away the resulting sound, especially of several towers together, has been described to be as loud as a motorcycle, like aircraft continually passing overhead, a “brick wrapped in a towel turning in a tumble drier,” “as if someone was mixing cement in the sky,” “like a train that never arrives.”
    It is a relentless rumble like unceasing thunder from an approaching storm.
    Enxco’s John Zimmerman admitted at a meeting in Lowell, Vt., “Wind turbines don’t make good neighbors.” [Click here for one story from Fenner, N.Y., where many other noises have been described, including an eerie screeching as the blade and nacelle assembly turns to catch the wind -- click here for a video recording of these noises.]

    The penetrating low-frequency aspect to the noise, a thudding vibration, much like the throbbing bass of a neighboring disco, travels much farther than the usually measured “audible” noise.
    It may be why horses who are completely calm around traffic and heavy construction are known to become very upset when they approach wind turbines [click here].
    Many people have complained that it causes anxiety and nausea.
    The only way to reduce it is to reduce the efficiency of the electricity production, i.e., reduce the illusion of profitability.
    It can’t be done.

    [ / ]

    Plus more in the above sites !

    All this to Save the Planet or perhaps more apropos was a quote from an American Military officer in the Vietnam War.

    We had to destroy the village to save it“.

    In the green / climate alarmist catastrophe lingo this could be translated as ; “We have to destroy everything that the planet has provided mankind through history to save the planet”!

    “From What, we are no longer sure of!”

    And it takes 150 tonnes of coal to build a on-shore wind turbine and 250 tonnes of coal to build an off-shore wind turbine!

    150

    • #

      ROM, the bugs on the leading edge problem can be avoided by proper airfoil design. Just don’t use a super laminar flow section although you could use bug wipers on wind turbine blades.
      In reality though, just like on aircraft propellers most of the drag on the blades is induced drag from changing the direction of the airflow over the blade. Hence for the most part, the lack of sophisticated airfoil sections on most propellers which in small aircraft mostly use the ancient Clark Y section from circa 1925.

      20

  • #
    Mike Spilligan

    Like Kevin Lohse I’m a Kipper – but I think he’s a little too optimistic about people generally beginning to question “renewables”. What the announcement about UK residents having a veto on turbines locally means is probably that there’ll be more coastal arrays to compensate; then it’s a case of out of sight, out of mind. It will appear to most people that fewer wind farms are being erected, but the subsidies will be as big as ever; especially as the off-shore ‘mills output is three times(?) as costly.
    Certainly our politicians are no more wise than they were a month ago: about 3 months ago I heard a “poli” on a radio discussion programme say that she (yes; sorry) had read that ‘mills now had energy storage batteries as a back-up. My guess is that she was muddled with STOR (unfortunate acronym) the diesel-powered (usually) Short Term Operating Reserve.
    (My pessimism is confirmed by our Government’s statement that over-staying a parking meter by 10 minutes would incur no penalty. The local authorities responsible have just ignored that.)

    60

  • #
    Matty

    OT: Never mind the useless wind turbines ( but we’ll still sell you more if you want them). Where’s the [first of the] $100 Billion Dollars you promised ? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/16/china-india-wheres-that-100-billion-you-promised/

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    At least the UK is finally waking up. But I have to wonder if it’s because they realize how little benefit there is from the windmills or because of the pressure of dissatisfied and angry constituents.

    The evidence points to the latter, not the former. I guess we should rejoice in even that small victory but I’d rather see the fallacy of renewables be recognized and renewables flat out rejected.

    120

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “on and off whirly-gigs”

    Jo, that made my week… :D

    60

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    wind and solar – Germany’s experience

    I think Australians should take heed and look at the German experience

    http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany

    The Germans have installed a massive capacity ( 84 percent of Germany’s average electric power ), but on any given day only 11% is utilized.

    and what is really interesting is the competing nature of solar and wind.
    you don’t get bright sunny days when the wind is blowing up a gale as the Germans discovered to their cost, requiring that they to switch to coal based fire stations to compensate.

    I am all in favor of reducing pollutants from Coal fire stations and this was evident in London during the 50′s when the emissions killed 12,000 people in only 3 months.

    but Wind and Solar are so chaotic and unreliable as a power generation system they are simply NOT suitable.

    70

    • #
      Rollo

      I am all in favor of reducing pollutants from Coal fire stations and this was evident in London during the 50′s when the emissions killed 12,000 people in only 3 months.

      Modern coal fired power staions emit far less pollutants than those of the 50′s. Particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, carbon monoxide and ammonia are vastly reduced in modern coal fired power plants. Most of what comes out the chimney is water vapor and carbon dioxide, which are beneficial.

      50

    • #
      tom0mason

      ScotsmaninUtah

      “…Coal fire stations and this was evident in London during the 50′s when the emissions killed 12,000 people in only 3 months.”

      I would point out that it was not just power stations that killed off these people but the many hundreds of thousands of inefficiently burning domestic coal fires, that were the primary source of heating for the majority of Londoners at the time.

      Unlike the tall chimneys of the power stations, domestic housing chimney stacks were never high enough in the geographic bowl that is London. Also domestic coal, unlike the premium quality Anthracite burned in power stations, was often inferior quality, higher sulfur content imported coal. Consequently the coal smoke and particulates would accumulate in London’s (geographic) depression during still windless days. This smoke not only dirtied the outsides of building but also dirtied the insides of the Londoners, killing quite a number of them.

      Remember too that London is a major railroad hub. Back then many hundreds of coal powered trains steamed in and out of London daily. Add to than the highly inefficient vehicle engines of the day (caused in part by the government’s regulation, and taxation on vehicles by engine size and type).

      All in all, back then London’s smogs were a very toxic brew.

      70

  • #

    That will mean no new wind-farms on land in the UK.

    I disagree. It might mean no more new wind farms in England, but it could do so in Scotland. Many of the wind farms are on large estates, or in remote areas. Here the few jobs from wind farms can make a large difference. The semi-independent Scottish Government is more fanatically pro-wind than even Ed Davey, (Amber Rudd’s predecessor as Secretary of State for Climate Change). The other bad news is that wind power will be increasingly driven offshore, where the electricity produced costs 50% more than onshore wind power, and triple the cost of coal or gas.

    60

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      MBC:

      Don’t forget that all the costs of keeping supply going while the on and off whirly gigs stuff things up, are born by the coal and gas using producers. I take it that you are using UK figures which make offshore wind look much better than it is because of this handicapping of the opposition.

      Figures in Australia are roughly coal 30-32, gas approx. 65 ( CCGT ) and 110 for on-shore wind. So far no-one has been stupid enough to build an off-shore wind farm here; possibly not wanting the problems, but from your percentage it could be 170, although I would think that the maintenance costs would push that to more like 240 (a figure I have seen elsewhere…in the Baltic? )

      40

      • #

        Greame
        It is good to see some alternative figures, and you are right about rigged markets.
        For the UK, I do not have actual production costs, but the actual prices paid. These I will quote in GBP and in brackets A$
        All electricity produced is sold in the wholesale market. This is about 45 (88) per Mwh. Renewables get a support price. Onshore wind is about 90 (175), offshore wind about 140 (275). This is where I get my ratios from.
        The additional costs of renewables does not stop there. You need to connect the power up to the grid. The cost of building power lines from remote parts of Scotland is phenomenal. These hidden costs are loaded onto the final electricity and gas bills paid by consumers (domestic and business). A relatively small, but growing cost, is for backup electricity generation at peak demand when the wind fails. We have an increasing numbers of diesel generators in reserve to stop the lights going out.

        20

  • #
    Another Ian

    Graeme No.3

    May 19, 2015 at 6:19 am

    Try this look at “costs”!

    “IMF Attempts to Hide True Cost of Renewables by Claiming Fossil Fuels Receive Large Subsidies”

    More at

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/18/imf-attempts-to-hide-true-cost-of-renewables-by-claiming-fossil-fuels-receive-large-subsidies/

    30

  • #
    peter rumpf

    I spoke to a friend about wind farms last night. They said why would the government tell they were good if they are not.

    50

  • #

    100.00% useless at reducing temperature. That’s great.

    Actually, it probably is great … as there’s no reason to reduce the global temperature.

    80

    • #
      el gordo

      As the Holocene draws to a close it would be extremely negligent to ‘reduce global temperature’.

      60

  • #
    Dave in the states

    Yup,

    To quote Rodger Helmer of the UKIP: ” Unneeded, certainly ineffective, and ruinously expensive.”

    He was referring to all proposed solutions besides just wind turbines, BTW.

    70

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Six billion dollars in investment in wind and solar power will be lost as a result of a compromise deal on the renewable energy target, energy market analysts say.

    ‘Bloomberg New Energy Finance says investment in Australian projects will fall from an expected $20.6 billion by 2020 to $14.7 billion after the Abbott government and Labor reached a deal to reduce the target.’

    SMH

    40

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘INDUSTRY Minister Ian Macfarlane has instructed the wind industry to “get very busy” building turbines or risk defaulting on the renewable energy target scheme.

    ‘A YEAR-LONG political impasse was broken on Monday after the federal government and Labor struck a deal to slash the
    target from 41,000 gigawatt hours to 33,000.

    ‘The bipartisan deal is expected to unlock billions in investment, but Mr Macfarlane told ABC radio on Tuesday it will be an enormous challenge for the industry to reach the new target.’

    AAP

    30

    • #
      Richard of NZ

      As an outsider I would applaud this instruction provided:
      1..The developers pay for all of the construction and development themselves i.e. no subsidies.
      2..Consumers of electricity are given the choice of the source of their electricity, but no cheating, like wind power unless there is no wind, then coal. Once the choice is made then the consumer is stuck with it, for say, 12 months.
      3..Consumers pay the actual cost of production. If the producers make a mistake and under charge then stiff bikkies.

      I fear that wind and other impossible (re. 1st law of thermodynamics or law of conservation of energy) “renewable” energy projects would vanish into the mists of history.

      70

  • #
    David Maddison

    Aren’t all the desal plants backed by “green” wind power, thus adding to the expense of these unused and unneeded facilities?

    40

  • #
    David Maddison

    Justnas you can elect to purchase “green” electricity, there should be an option to purchase only electricity generated by traditional means – at traditional low costs…

    90

    • #
      ROM

      David Madison @ # 39

      My thoughts also David. Been thinking along the following lines for some time now.

      Charging the consumers for the so called and misnamed green renewable power at the true green renewable power costs and the fossil fueled generated power at it’s true costs can be easily done with the Smart Meters that have been installed across Victoria’s system.
      Its a case of switching rates according to the manner in which the consumer has chosen, similar in fact to the numerous choices of widely varying plans and costings that consumers can chose from in the phone industry and from the internet companies.

      With the radio network of the Smart Meter system it would also be quite possible to just switch the consumers and industrial users who have elected to use only Green power, off and on as the Green power generated supplies become available on line or fail to generate enough power for part of or all of their self elected Green renewable power consumer’s use.

      In short, through the current Smart Meter system here in victoria at least it is possible to ration Green renewable power according to the renewable energy production of that moment of time to those consumers who have self elected and chosen to be full scale supporters of green renewable power and who have elected and chosen to use green power only or to use power in a mix of first choice green renewable power with fossil fuel generated power as the secondary choice backup.

      A consumers choice of Green renewable power only would of course entail frequent periods without any power as the Smart Meter system would react by switching off that consumer’s power until Green renewable wind or solar power was once again available in sufficient amounts to supply the consumers who designated Green power as their sole source of energy.

      Such a system could be easily put in place with today’s Smart Systems metering along with the appropiate individual costings for green and fossil fuel generated power even in a mixed choice system.

      The green power availability of supply and the appropiate and much higher costings for that green renewable power would be tightly linked to the output and the costs of the wind turbines and commercial solar systems and the private solar systems that are back feeding power into the grid and whose owners are currently collecting the largesse at other consumers unneeded, unwanted and completely unwarranted and inexcusable expense.

      To add icing to the cake for non renewable power consumers, anybody with an installed solar system would pay full renewable power rates all the time for any power they consume from the grid.
      And do what Spain is now doing, charge those private renewable solar panel, wind turbine and mini-hydro and micro hydro system owners [ lots in Spain ] the full costs of using the Grid to earn their income from their renewable power fed into the Grid

      It would certainly sort out the consumer demand for green renewable energy from wind and solar along with the renewable energy suppliers being only paid for the power choices and power consumption that the various consumers elect to have as their source of energy.

      And it would give the politicals and policy makers a very strong indication of the public and consumer support for Renewable energy as clearly distinct from the spin and lying disassembling propaganda by the Renewable energy industry and whether consumers were willing to pay those big extra costs for all that renewable energy that was going to “Save the Planet” from all sorts of catastrophic disasters some time in the far distant future when we, the paying consumers of today will have been dead for quite a lot of decades or centuries past.

      70

      • #
        David Maddison

        Thanks ROM, I was typing another comment and you must have been doing so at the same time. You also said what I suggested, those that use “green” power should not get any when it is not being produced.

        50

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    O/T Just heard on ABC Radio

    The gist seems to be that the missing heat has been found in the Indian Ocean and that is why the temperature plateau.

    In “Nature Something” if I heard correctly.

    Might be this one in Nature Geoscience

    “Letter | 18 May 2015

    Interocean heat transfer

    Sang-Ki Lee et al.

    The slow surface warming since 1998 has been linked to high ocean heat uptake. An analysis of observations and ocean model simulations suggests that the increase in Pacific heat uptake has been compensated by heat transport to the Indian Ocean

    50

    • #

      …..has been compensated by heat transport to the Indian Ocean.
      I wonder who paid for the busfare for that.

      I heard this also on the 10AM news from that paragon of unbiassed reporting, good old Auntie!

      Tony.

      70

      • #

        Did they report the published findings in a biased way?

        05

      • #
        ROM

        South Africa is experiencing one of the coldest winters it has ever recorded.
        There is a large pool of extremely cold Atlantic water off SA’s west coast at present.

        There is also a large cold pool off south eastern Australia’s coast at present.
        In fact the SST’s to the south and particularly to the north of Australia right up through and around the Maritime continent to our north and NW has very cold SST anomalies.
        Joe Bastardi, the quite well known high profile owner of a major commercial global weather forecasting outfit points out that in the 1998 very strong El Nino episode, the SST anomalies around Australia were very high.
        He is currently suggesting [ along with the Peruvian Anchovies ] that any sort of decent El Nino this year is highly unlikely due to the very cold SST anomalies around Australia and to Australia’s north.

        And the Indian Ocean SST anomalies are currently about neutral so damned if I know where all that heat has gone although Bob Tisdale does say that the Indian Ocean is the only Ocean that is showing a warming trend in it’s deeper depths as the waters from the Western Pacific Warm Pool , the largest such warm pool on the planet and a permanent one at that, flows down through the Indonesian Through Flow system into the IO.

        The Great Southern Ocean around Antarctica is cooling in all it’s depths and extent over the last couple of decades which might make life a lot more interesting for southern Australia in the decades ahead.

        http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anome.5.18.2015.gif

        72

        • #
          toorightmate

          The extremely cold Atlantic water is a direct result of Global warming.
          It’s enough to freeze the balls off a billiard table.

          30

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Its like the energy grid Tony. Different parts of it work to absorb heat on like a roster basis. Right now its the Indian Oceans shift.

        30

    • #

      that is indeed the one… heard it on the 10:00 news bulletin

      10

    • #
      Rollo

      The fact that the predicted heat is “missing” indicates a failure of the models. Repeatadly finding it in various unlikey places simply proves that the original hypothesis of man-made CO2 causing thermal runaway has failed.

      80

  • #
    CheapTalk

    The wind-turbine locals are made,
    To endure what their owners evade,
    Like the droning of rotors,
    And the humming of motors,
    Plus the odd detachable blade.

    … and another issue to please all the legals,
    They’re marvellously good at dismembering eagles.

    70

  • #
    Neville

    Matt Ridley explains why Fossil Fuel divestment won’t work. Just simple logic and reason plus simple maths and science.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-why-fossil-fuel-divestment-wont-work/

    70

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Very nice. Matt encapsulates the delusional stupidity in a handful of words.

      “It’s all mad. Divestment won’t work, is unethical, hypocritical, aimed at the wrong target and based on flawed premises. First, there is a buyer for every seller.”

      End of argument basically lol

      60

  • #
    David Maddison

    I don’t know how physically you would do this – presumably some type of smart meter – but people who demand “green” electricity should get ONLY electricity from wind turbines and solar so when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow they should get no electricity. They should not have the benefit of economical and reliable base load power production of coal, gas, hydro or in some places nuclear.

    70

  • #
    pat

    hmmm!

    19 May: ABC: Kirsty Nancarrow: Mount Emerald wind farm poisoning claims aired at Senate hearing in Cairns
    A Senate committee hearing on wind turbines has heard claims of poisoning on the site of a proposed wind farm in far north Queensland.
    About 50 Atherton Tablelands’ residents opposed to the Mount Emerald wind farm attended yesterday’s hearing in Cairns.
    The Queensland Government recently approved a controversial proposal to build 63 wind turbines at Mount Emerald but the project is yet to gain federal approval.
    Tablelands regional councillor Marjorie Pagani told the hearing, it appeared clearing began on the site before RATCH Australia received State Government approval for the project.
    “There are poisoned tracks either side of the creek,” she said.
    “It’s very clearly depicted. Cracking of the trees which is caused by poison, a stench of poison in all the waterways and if one goes outside the turbine proposed circles it’s thick, lush cypress pine vegetation and undergrowth.”…
    RATCH rejects wind farm site poisoning claims
    RATCH’s Anil Nangia said it would investigate the poisoning claims but rejected the allegations.
    “There’s certainly not been any poisoning or chemicals put on site that we’re aware of,” he said.
    “We certainly haven’t done any land clearing that we’re aware of.
    “The turbine site hasn’t been finalised. We’re still going through the conditions of the DA [development application] which requires us to have a 1.5 kilometre setback from the nearest residence.”…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-19/poisoning-claims-aired-at-senate-wind-turbines/6479686?section=qld

    30

  • #
    pat

    wow!

    18 May: World Bank: Mobilizing the Billions and Trillions for Climate Finance
    The climate ministerial reflected all three as 42 ministers of finance and development met with the heads of the World Bank, IMF, and United Nations and business and investment leaders to discuss meeting the world’s climate finance needs and how carbon pricing can lower emission and raise public funds for clean, resilient development…
    The magnitude of the challenge
    ***Over the next 15 years, the global economy will require an estimated $89 trillion in infrastructure investments across cities, energy, and land-use systems, and $4.1 trillion in incremental investment for the low-carbon transition to keep within the internationally agreed limit of a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise.

    In addition, developed countries are working to meet a commitment made in 2010 to mobilize $100 billion a year from public and private sources by 2020 for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. Showing the pathways to that $100 billion commitment will be important for building trust and confidence around the Paris climate negotiations that are expected to produce a new international agreement later this year…

    ***Central banks
    On the larger question of economic transformation, the UNEP Inquiry led a discussion on “a quiet revolution” underway to redesign financial systems for low-carbon growth. Financial regulators, standard-setters, and banks are rethinking the rules governing financial systems from a sustainability perspective, the speakers said.***

    ***Investors, particularly long-term investors like pension funds, which were represented at the meetings, have been increasing pressure on companies to shift toward cleaner investments and avoid high-emitting assets that could become stranded in an economy evolving away from fossil fuels.***

    ***The magnitude of the finance challenges ahead and the discussions made clear the need to build on one another’s work and set targets, said World Bank Group Vice President and Special Envoy for Climate Change Rachel Kyte. “One thing that came through very clear is that you have to know where you’re going. You have to have clear goals and targets at the national level,” Kyte said. Shifting the world to a cleaner trajectory will require nothing short of economic transformation.***
    http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/04/18/raising-trillions-for-climate-finance

    LET YOUR PENSION/SUPER FUND MANAGERS KNOW YOU ARE NOT CLAMORING FOR “companies to shift toward cleaner investments and avoid high-emitting assets that could become stranded in an economy evolving away from fossil fuels”. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.

    40

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall – don’t know where thise goes:

    17 May: WSJ: Brian H. Potts: The Hole in the Rooftop Solar-Panel Craze
    Large-scale plants make sense, but panels for houses simply transfer wealth from average electric customers
    Most people buy rooftop solar panels because they think it will save them money or make them green, or both. But the truth is that rooftop solar shouldn’t be saving them money (though it often does), and it almost certainly isn’t green. In fact, the rooftop-solar craze is wasting billions of dollars a year that could be spent on greener initiatives. It also is hindering the growth of much more cost-effective renewable sources of power…
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hole-in-the-rooftop-solar-panel-craze-1431899563?mod=trending_now_1

    14 May: Times-Union: Larry Rulison: Major wind turbine briefing
    General Electric Co.’s renewable energy unit will make a major announcement Tuesday related to its wind turbine business. It will coincide with a major wind energy conference. Anne McEntee, CEO of GE Renewable Energy, said in the trade publication Recharge that computer upgrades to its wind turbines have increased energy production 5 percent and profits by 20 percent…
    http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Major-wind-turbine-briefing-6264771.php

    Bottom line: Big Data is the money-spinner of the future
    Recharge (subscription)-30 Apr 2015
    By Anne McEntee … Driven by technological advances, the cost of wind has dropped by 58% over the past five years, while solar is down a whopping 78%. … And GE believes that the key to making renewables the energy of choice … Recharge’s Thought Leaders Club brings together leading thinkers and …

    30

  • #
    pat

    “Climate champion”?

    18 May: AFP: Climate champion Al Gore voices hope for Paris talks
    “The world is fortunate that France is hosting this important conference in December. They’ve spared no effort to make it a success,” Nobel Prize-winner Gore said in a meeting with French President Francois Hollande.
    “In the last century an American poet could have been writing about the string of conferences on climate when he wrote the words ‘after the last no comes the yes’,” Gore added, referring to Wallace Stevens.
    “And on that yes the future of the world depends. This conference is the one where the world will say yes to an agreement to reduce global warming.”…
    Also on Monday, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius warned that the international community “does not have the right to fail” at the upcoming climate talks.
    “We must resolutely engage because there is no other solution, for the simple reason that there is no alternative planet,” Fabius said in Berlin.
    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/climate-champion-al-gore-voices-hope-paris-talks-195443209.html#ZeoQ8P3

    how does any other business get a look-in?

    18 May: Bloomberg: Germany, France Seek Curb on Fossil Fuel Pollution This Century
    by Stefan NicolaBrian Parkin
    About 35 ministers gathered in Berlin will discuss financial aid to poor countries grappling with climate change, national emissions reductions and how a Paris deal could look, Hendricks said.
    Chancellor Angela Merkel will speak at the meeting Tuesday…
    On Wednesday and Thursday, business leaders gather in Paris to discuss their response to the environment. In New York this week, energy ministers from some 40 nations are gathering to discuss ways to spur cleaner forms of energy…

    18 May: RTCC: Megan Darby: Will the Paris business summit mobilise support for climate action?
    With just over six months to go until diplomats thrash out a deal, the French capital this week hosts the Business and Climate Summit.
    President Francois Hollande will be there in person on Wednesday to talk up the “Paris climate alliance” – a broad coalition to tackle climate change.
    “We want businesses to make a commitment, invest, innovate and prepare – with us, with the states, with the non-governmental organizations, with societies – tomorrow’s economy,” he says.
    The line-up includes big hitters known for their leadership on sustainability issues… and some fossil fuel giants better known for playing down the climate threat…
    Sandrine Dixson-Decleve, director of the Prince of Wales Corporate Leaders Group, says: “I am quite taken aback at the amount of momentum we have seen since September. There are so many initiatives.”
    Companies like Unilever are spearheading a drive to end deforestation, for example, while Apple has promised to go 100% renewable…
    ***“In many ways the game is up with coal,” says Topping (Nigel Topping, chief of the We Mean Business coalition). “What is a constructive role for a coal company in the [low carbon] transition? It might be difficult.”
    ***Greg Barker, UK prime minister David Cameron’s former climate envoy and newly appointed trustee at the Climate Group, agrees: “Unabated coal is the enemy.”…
    Yet speakers at the event include Tony Hayward, formerly of BP and now at mining giant Glencore Xstrata. His company dismisses concerns its coal assets will be stranded by climate action …
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/05/18/will-the-paris-business-summit-mobilise-support-for-climate-action/

    40

  • #
    pat

    accelerate the indoctrination:

    18 May: Project Syndicate: Educating for Sustainable Development
    by Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO and Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
    PARIS – This year marks a turning point for the world, with the international community adopting a new global development strategy in September and negotiating a universal deal to combat climate change in December. To succeed, policymakers must recognize that today’s global imperatives – to eradicate poverty and improve wellbeing, while restoring the Earth’s balance – form a single agenda, and that the most effective means of achieving it is education…
    Likewise, Article 6 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stipulates that education, training, and public awareness on climate change must be pursued.
    But, with negotiations on these global agreements far from complete, it is vital that policymakers’ emphasis on education continues to be reinforced. To this end, the world’s education ministers must take the opportunity offered by this month’s World Education Forum in Incheon, South Korea, to highlight the role that education can and should play in advancing sustainable development…
    Together, UNESCO and the UNFCCC are not only promoting climate-change education in schools; they are also giving teachers the tools and knowledge they need to provide that education through online courses. Already, more than 14 million students and 1.2 million teachers in 58 countries have been engaged in such learning, and 550 business schools have signed on to the Principles for Responsible Management Education, developed by the UN Global Compact.
    This progress, though important, is just the beginning. What is needed now is a global movement, with every student in every country learning about sustainable development from well-trained teachers, equipped with the appropriate curricula and resources…
    And, with effective educational programs that instill in future generations the importance of restoring Earth’s balance and delivering a prosperous future for the many, rather than the few, we can stay on that path…
    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/world-education-forum-sustainable-development-by-irina-bokova-and-christiana-figueres-2015-05

    30

  • #
    Dennis

    While waiting for my vehicle to be serviced today I scanned through a National Geographic magazine published earlier this year and noted a section about climate change and how, maybe, if, could be, the oceans keep rising many areas of the world could be swamped. Then I noticed references to Florida USA and how sections of that State could disappear under water including wetlands or swamps. They have drainage canals constructed a long time ago the article pointed out. I am now confused, the ocean might swamp the swamps that were drained to present levels in decades past?

    Now I am wondering if the lost heat is hidden somewhere in Florida?

    60

  • #
  • #
    ROM

    At # 50 prime posts this blog session of Jo’s is probably heading towards its finis.

    So an article and subject way, way off topic and to liven things up a bit, from the News Daily and considering there are only a few [ very smart ] ladies commenting on this blog and on a this following subject which the girls no doubt often raise, we have this question;

    Why do men exist?
    Scientific study offers an explanation!

    LONDON (Reuters) – Since in many species, sperm is males’ only contribution to reproduction, biologists have long puzzled about why evolutionary selection, known for its ruthless efficiency, allows them to exist.

    Then fortunately, just to make the males around here feel a little more needed we have this ;

    But in research published in the journal Nature on Monday, they found that sexual selection, in which males compete to be chose[n] by females for reproduction, improves the gene pool and boosts population health, helping explain why males are important.

    Hallelujah! I knew there was something around that needed my input [ cough cough ! ahem!]

    40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And this research is supposed to be news exactly why? I was taught essentially this way back in college.

      But there’s another good reason for the male human. The newborn and its mother are very vulnerable and it’s highly likely that way back in our history humans would not have survived as a species without the male to protect mother and child. And even today this role continues. It may be in a different form for a quite different time. But it continues. So ROM, you can say, Hallelujah!” for two reasons.

      30

  • #
    el gordo

    Melbourne academic calls for ‘climate denial legislation’ to put coolists in their place.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/5/1/academic-demands-totalitarian-response-to-agw.html

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      You definitely need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of free speech.

      For that matter, with the UN so bent on defining everyone’s “rights”, where is their call for universal freedom of speech?

      00

  • #

    Wind Energy Generation: The $500 Billion Global Fraud – The British People and those across the world are Being Totally Conned and Absolutely Misled by our Politicians with an energy policy that is based upon predominantly, hot-air. For Wind Turbines in pure logic and environmental terms, are sheer economic madness in the long-term – http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/wind-energy-generation-british-people.html

    00

  • #