Duking It Out With Foreign Investors

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

The Duke of Edinburgh, the husband of Queen Elizabeth, has spoken out about windmills, and he’s not happy at all. Chris Huhne, the UK Energy Secretary, has said that people who oppose windmills are “curmudgeons and fault-finders”. He finds windmills “elegant” and “beautiful”.

Figure 1. A photo of elegant windmills beautifying the otherwise inelegant, ugly UK countryside. PHOTO SOURCE

The Duke, on the other hand, thinks that windmills are an absolute disgrace. Of course that’s my translation, because being royalty, the Duke would never say something as direct and crude as that. The man who tried to sell His Dukeness the windmills reports on the conversation as follows:

“He said they were absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidies and an absolute disgrace,” said Mr Wilmar. “I was surprised by his very frank views.”

Hmmm … well, I guess royalty may not be that much different after all. The article continues:

Mr Wilmar said his attempts to argue that onshore wind farms were one of the most cost-effective forms of renewable energy received a fierce response from the Duke.

“He said, ‘You don’t believe in fairy tales do you?’” said Mr Wilmar. “He said that they would never work as they need back-up capacity.”

The Duke won’t abide windmills on his estate. I don’t blame him one bit, I commend his understanding of the situation, and I admire his frankness. The Duke’s eldest son, the Artist Currently Known As Prince, has agreed with the Duke’s position. He won’t allow windmills on his estate either, despite The Artist’s well-known alarmism about CO2. Funny how that works, even royalty believes in NIMBY.

Actually, though, none of that was what caught my eye about the Telegraph article. The part that made my hair stand on end was this throwaway line from just before the end:

Two-thirds of the country’s wind turbines are owned by foreign companies, which are estimated to reap £500 million a year in subsidies.

Yikes! I’m too gobsmacked to even comment on that, other than to say I guess we know how they lost their Empire … not that the US is far behind …

w.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

228 Responses to Duking It Out With Foreign Investors

  1. Josualdo says:

    The Duke is known to speak his mind.

    Foreign companies, ah yes, and we’d like to know from which countries. Maybe no surprises there though.

  2. Robin Edwards says:

    Well! I hears this on the radio this morning. It’s now 8.17 pm here so I’ve had time to ponder this remarkable statement. All I can say is “Well done, Prince Philip”. It would be interesting to eavesdrop on the next conversation he has with his son Charles!

    Is it possible that someone in our government might now just think, for a change, before committing multi-billions of pounds sterling to yet more windmills that require constant backup from conventional sources? I fear not. They seem to be congenitally disposed to absorbing nonsense rather than engineering facts.

    Anyway, it might just be a start.

    Robin

  3. David, UK says:

    Yeah, the Duke has never held back with his views in the past so his outspokenness is no surprise. What is a surprise to me is that he is actually against these things. And even more surprising to me is that Charles is against them. I always thought that our Royals, being good Bilderbergers, were completely pro all of that stuff. NIMBY indeed.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    The astounding thing is the Duke of Edinburgh has been presiding over the WWF in various capacities for 40 years. From the official royal website:

    “Prince Philip was the first President of World Wildlife Fund – UK (WWF) from its formation in 1961 to 1982, and International President of WWF (later the World Wide Fund for Nature) from 1981 to 1996. He is now President Emeritus of WWF.”

    Much squirming must be going on in WWF Central at the moment.

  5. henrychance says:

    The enlightened elite class.
    One day the people will get tired of subsidizing this fiasco. The high energy cost hurts people.
    In regards to “science” it takes 1,450 tons of coal to make the steel and rebar for the footings for one tower. It takes several tons Natural Gas to make the concrete for the base
    The staggering amount of CO2 produced before a single unit of electricity is produced. Then there is the cost of building many more ugly transmission lines for a gathering grid. The wind electric company doesn’t participate in the grid. They sell the electric at the turbine.

    1 year ago we had 3 weeks of nearly zero wind in the midwest near a huge wind farm. The A/C bills would have been trippled if the electric had been bought from the turbines.

  6. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Bruce of Newcastle says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    The astounding thing is the Duke of Edinburgh has been presiding over the WWF in various capacities for 40 years.

    Indeed, Bruce, that was my first thought.

    w.

  7. mat says:

    I totally agree with his views as every time I open my door I have to look at the wind farm in the picture and the 25% that’s broken down every week !

  8. Willis – good article, but just out of interest, can you tell me how the electricity is conducted away from these, or any other, wind-turbines?

  9. Philip Peake (aka PJP) says:

    Prince Philip is well known for speaking his mind. He may be getting on a bit, but I think he is still pretty sharp. As far as NIMBY is concerned, he sees the whole of the UK as his back yard.

    I wouldn’t let his association with the WWF affect your view of him too much. Initially, it was a worthwhile organization doing good work. Like many such organizations, it has been infiltrated by people who use it to further their own political causes rather than its original aims.

  10. Dave says:

    Bruce of Newcastle says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    The astounding thing is the Duke of Edinburgh has been presiding over the WWF in various capacities for 40 years. From the official royal website:

    “Prince Philip was the first President of World Wildlife Fund – UK (WWF) from its formation in 1961 to 1982, and International President of WWF (later the World Wide Fund for Nature) from 1981 to 1996. He is now President Emeritus of WWF.”

    Much squirming must be going on in WWF Central at the moment.

    Bruce. I think that at one time the WWF, Greenpeace Etc.. really were decent well intended protectors of Nature and our Natural world. I used to support them in their efforts. But they have become untrustworthy Eco fascists and frauds, that has lost the support of nature loving people like me and I suspect the wise old Duke.

  11. Dodgy Geezer says:

    Given that the husband of the ruler of the country has announced his abhorrence of wind turbines, in direct contravention of the government of the day’s position, you would think that the national news might be interested. This sort of thing is quite dodgy, politically – sections of government publicising deep disagreement. It is instructive to see what the BBC are saying about wind turbines. Are they mentioning this? Have a look… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15295769

  12. Dave Springer says:

    Teh windmills are better looking than oil wells that’s for sure. Teh windmills don’t smell bad like oil wells either. Developed oil fields are nas-tee.

  13. Nigel S says:

    The Yaohnanen tribe worship the Duke, rather that than Gaia any day.

  14. binny says:

    Part of Philip’s job is to say things the Queen can’t.

  15. keith at hastings uk says:

    Re subsidy, yikes indeed!
    For those not in the know, the mechanism for this subsidy is cunningly hidden. I recall it works something like this, with apologies if not quite right. Wholesalers of electricity have to obtain Renewable Obligation Certificates for a quantity being a percentage of their sales (Mwhrs). This percentage is set by UK Government and is rising. The source of the certificates are those who generate using renewables, essentially wind. If the wholesaler gets not enough, he is “fined” (can pay his way out). So, there is a market and value for ROC.
    This has two consequences: 1) the windmill operator gets loads of £ for his ROCs. Windmills, in business case terms, are as much about printing ROC as about making ‘lec.
    2) the wholesaler has cost inputs – the costs of the ‘lec and the ROC – that just go into his prices to the retailers so the end user doesn’t see them/know how much he is paying for the wind mill dream. No subsidy from Government, which is another cunning feature.
    And despite 3731 Mw installed, say 2000 windmills, they are giving this moment only 916 Mw or about 2.3% of a lowish total UK demand, but are blighting the landscape, etc. Wonder how long before gearbox failures etc cut this even more. And Chris Huhne (the responsible Minister) wants some 20% of capacity from renewables. Double yikes then! 20,000 windmills anybody?

  16. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    said Mr Wilmar. “I was surprised by his very frank views.”

    Well not many people in the UK are surprised by the duke’s ‘frank views’, he does not waste time on being politically correct, for which many of us are thankful.

  17. Chris B says:

    Isn’t that photo dramatically altered with Photoshop?

  18. Auto says:

    Well, we know that HRH the Duke has had strongly held – and occasinally very clearly expressed – views for decades; he was in the Royal Navy for many years [1939 to 1950/51, I think, as an active officer/commander].
    Against the bird-choppers – fair enough; he knows they harm (avian) wildlife, as well as needing turning back-up using fossil fuels.
    I have no problem with combined wind and solar – plus battery back-up – for isolated sites – road signs, railway kit between stations [especially as the badboy sseem happy to steal the cables].
    Pure wind – as Huhne – the Rt Hon Christopher huhne, P.C., M.P. – seems not to appreciate is simply not adequate. It needs stand-by generatingpower; it chops up birds; it only works when it is windy (but not t o o windy).
    In Britain, we need to look much more at tidal power – with 15 knot [27 kph] tidal streams, at spring tide, in the Pentland Firth, the strait betwen Orkney and Scotland, we should be able to generate a bit of power – and, perhaps, ocean current power. If we do – consult with the seamen about fouling the sea with kit, please.

  19. What is interesting to me is that Prince Philip has got wind power exactly right: “completely reliant on subsidies” and “need[s] backup capacity.”

    I wonder who has been briefing him.

  20. P Walker says:

    Dave Springer ,
    You’d probably feel differently if you were receiving royalties on an oil well . I sure would , in fact I might just find them elegant and beautiful .

  21. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Dave Springer says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Teh windmills are better looking than oil wells that’s for sure. Teh windmills don’t smell bad like oil wells either. Developed oil fields are nas-tee.

    I’ll tell the Duke not to allow any oil wells on his estate either …

    But in any case, Dave, I’m quite willing to do without wind power, and not just because they are ugly as sin. Take them all away.

    Are you willing to do the same, to do without fossil power, Dave? Or do you just want to bitch and complain loudly about the “nas-tee” oil wells, while at the same time burning that very oil at a rate of knots to sustain your standard of living?

    I thought so … your kind of green hypocrisy turns my stomach. Me, I’m not the kind of man like you, the kind that will happily eat the meat while blaming the butcher for being “nas-tee” …

    w.

  22. Willis Eschenbach says:

    O H Dahlsveen says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Willis – good article, but just out of interest, can you tell me how the electricity is conducted away from these, or any other, wind-turbines?

    Plain old garden variety power lines, in the case of these plants underground lines from the looks of it.

    w.

  23. Allan MacRae says:

    Great Scot, he’s got it!

    The Duke has it right – the fatal flaw of wind power is that it requires almost 100% backup capacity from conventional power stations.

    This is even true of very large, country-wide distributed grids.

    Willis, to verify, check Figure 7 of the E.On Netz Wind Report 2005 that I emailed you today, which refers to Germany’s power grid.
    E.On Netz was in 2005, and may still be, the largest wind power generator in the world.
    (Quote)
    Fig 7. Falling substitution capacity
    The more wind power capacity is in the grid, the lower the percentage of traditional generation it can replace.
    As wind power capacity rises, the lower availability of the wind farms determines the reliability
    of the system as a whole to an ever increasing extent. Consequently the greater reliability of
    traditional power stations becomes increasingly eclipsed.
    As a result, the relative contribution of wind power to the guaranteed capacity of our supply system up to the year 2020 will fall continuously to around 4% (FIGURE 7).
    In concrete terms, this means that in 2020, with a forecast wind power capacity of over 48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of traditional power production can be replaced by these wind farms.
    (End of quote)

    Also, wind power can dangerously destabilize the entire power grid. See Figure 5 & 6 in the same report.
    (Quote)
    FIGURE 5 shows the annual curve of wind power feed-in in the E.ON control area for 2004, from which it is possible to derive the wind power feed-in during the past year:
    1. The highest wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid was just above 6,000MW for a brief period, or
    put another way the feed-in was around 85% of the installed wind power capacity at the time.
    2. The average feed-in over the year was 1,295MW, around one fifth of the average installed wind power capacity over the year.
    3. Over half of the year, the wind power feed-in was less than 14% of the average installed wind
    power capacity over the year.
    The feed-in capacity can change frequently within a few hours. This is shown in FIGURE 6,
    which reproduces the course of wind power feedin during the Christmas week from 20 to 26
    December 2004.
    Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year
    at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only 10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW.
    Handling such significant differences in feed-in levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.
    (End of quote)

    This reliable information has been available for years, and has been ignored. I know this is true, because I published it online and in newspaper articles, starting in 2002.

    A trillion dollars has been squandered worldwide on climate hysteria, much of it on nonsensical wind power. Jesus wept.

  24. Latitude says:

    Dave says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    Bruce. I think that at one time the WWF, Greenpeace Etc.. really were decent well intended protectors of Nature and our Natural world
    ============================================================
    Dave they were alarmists before they even got a name……….
    Otherwise why do it
    The WWF was a spinoff of the IUCN, specifically to raise money, spend money, pay outrageous salaries
    You don’t raise money by telling everyone “nothing to see here”

  25. wayne says:

    Finally some truth from across the AGW chasm:

    Windmills are a losing proposition.

    Sequel coming soon to your local web browser: Duke’n It Out in D.C. ☺

  26. nofreewind says:

    Dave Springer says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm
    Teh windmills are better looking than oil wells that’s for sure. Teh windmills don’t smell bad like oil wells either. Developed oil fields are nas-tee.

    Davie, you are completely ignorant of the relationship between wind turbines and oil wells. Only a tiny % of electricity produced use oil, 1-2%. They really having nothing to do with each other, of course since you believe wind turbines are related to oil wells, you also likely believe that soon we will all be driving electric cars and not using oil.

  27. Doug UK says:

    Dave says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    “I think that at one time the WWF, Greenpeace Etc.. really were decent well intended protectors of Nature and our Natural world. I used to support them in their efforts. But they have become untrustworthy Eco fascists and frauds, that has lost the support of nature loving people like me and I suspect the wise old Duke.”

    Totally agree.

    Doug UK

  28. DocMartyn says:

    I agree with some of the earlier posters, the WWF used be be a fine organization that was perverted from its original purpose some decades ago.

  29. Spen says:

    Prime Minister Cameron has a weekly meeting with the Queen. Do you think he’ll ask her to get the Duke to get back into line – it could cost Cameron a fortune in the future as his father-in- law has invested millions on wind tiyrbines. Is this a vested interest that should be declared?

  30. Jeremy says:

    Absolutely. Nobody wants a coal-fried power station in their backyard either. The advantage however is that one coal-fired power station replaces thousands of wind turbines and is far more reliable. Fossil fuels are by far the lesser evil in terms of environmental impact. Coal fired-power stations should make eminent sense to everyone (including royalty) except, of course, the extreme wacko watermelons.

  31. mike g says:

    He’s wrong about requiring constant backup. Hasn’t he heard? The citizenry is just going to have to get used to using the power when it’s available and doing without when it’s not.

  32. Latitude says:

    Dave says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    Bruce. I think that at one time the WWF, Greenpeace Etc.. really were decent well intended protectors of Nature and our Natural world
    ============================================
    Dave, I’m not picking on you….you just mentioned WWF and Greenpeace in the same post… ;)

    Here’s my problem with those two, and all of the other lying cheating save this and that BS….

    These are the same people making up lies about polar bears, frogs, butterflies, coral reefs…you name it

    Windmills are killing endangered and protected birds, bats, plants….etc….and not a friggin word from the lying hypocrites

    “”The Altamont Pass​ wind farm in California kills 1,000 Golden Eagles per decade. Under US law, the operators should be subject to $250 million in fines and 2,000 years in jail.””

    http://www.real-science.com/huhne-raptor-choppers-elegant-beautiful

  33. Stephen Brown says:

    Have a look at Fenbeagle’s take on Huhne’s “Huh Sticks”.
    Hilarious!
    BTW, I think that HRH has got the right idea about 16thC technology being pushed as the solution in the 21stC

  34. Interstellar Bill says:

    Dave Springer: Realism makes any sane person vomit at the sight of giant windmills

    If windmills consistently delivered the same energy per acre as oil wells,
    let alone nuclear reactors,
    nobody would be complaining,
    but since its more like 1% the output a quarter of the time,
    with hideously hazardous maintance tasks
    that kill more people per year than refinery explosions do,
    pardon us in laughing at the windmill-promoters
    being from the same crowd that opposed nukes,
    supposedly due to considerations of
    subsidies, economics, engineering performance, and safety,
    at all of which windmills fail compared to nuclear,
    especially considering that nuclear engineering
    has seen zero new plants in decades.

    If nuke progresss had been allowed to continue onward from 1975,
    they would be making 100% of our electricity by now,
    at far less cost than the coal and gas we’re stuck with.

    Remember that the Fukishima reactors are 50 years old,
    and would have been replaced by tsunami-proof designs.

  35. Bruce says:

    There was a report on the news that windmill farms interfere with radar both weather radar and defense radar. When you add this to the situation plus the large number of birds killed by windmills it makes you support him but for additional reasons.

  36. DirkH says:

    O H Dahlsveen says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:37 pm
    “Willis – good article, but just out of interest, can you tell me how the electricity is conducted away from these, or any other, wind-turbines?”

    At least here in Germany, wind parks are, whenever possible, built near an existing power plant. This way they can use the existing high voltage distribution net, and there is a smaller danger of the wind turbines overwhelming the grid. It also becomes easier to restart them. (Wind turbines cannot start by themselves, they need power supply for that, even if the wind would suffice; they need power to start the microcontrollers and turn the blades into the right position.)

    They exist in a kind of symbiosis with fossil fuels ;-)

  37. TomRude says:

    How about that ABC News new stunt?
    http://news.yahoo.com/greenhouse-gases-weren-t-invisible-123052512.html;_ylt=ArNtBcCBaWeX66oj8ABCFJZVbBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTRvdWVla2cyBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBmb3IgeW91BHBrZwM3ZDI0MzViYi04YmI1LTM3YjgtOGZmNy1mOTVjYTUxMTFkOWEEcG9zAzcEc2VjA25ld3NfZm9yX3lvdQR2ZXIDMDFhZGM0YTAtMTM4Yy0xMWUxLTlmZmUtZDJmZjRkN2FhOTc5;_ylg=X3oDMTM1YmoxaTRmBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDYzVkNzgwMjYtYzI3YS0zYzdjLTkyNDAtMGIxZDk2ZGJkZjJlBHBzdGNhdAN3b3JsZHxldXJvcGUEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

    by Bill Blackmore (I am not making that one up…)

    “NATURE’S EDGE NOTEBOOK

    Observation, Analysis, Reflection, New Questions

    By Bill Blakemore

    The emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gas that are now rapidly warming the earth are by definition invisible.

    But what if we could see them? Might the United States have begun to regulate them long ago — as with other emissions we do see?

    The Graphics Department of ABC News, working with technicians from the FLIR camera company, whose special “GasfinderIR – GF” cameras can “see” greenhouse gases, has created artist’s impressions of what it might look like if we could see our greenhouse gas emissions.

    Take a look at this brief video of their work:

    Greenhouse gases are invisible by definition because, in order to produce the “greenhouse effect” of building up extra heat inside, they must first allow that heat — which comes from the sun — to enter.

    So, like the clear panes of glass on a greenhouse, the invisible greenhouse gases in the air let the hot, visible sunlight pass through them on its way down to warm the earth.

    Look up from inside a greenhouse and you don’t see the glass — it’s invisible — but do see the bright sun behind it. You also feel its heat even though that light has passed through the glass.

    On a greenhouse, that same invisible glass also traps much of that heat from the sun inside the greenhouse, just as the invisible greenhouse gases in the air let in the visible light but also trap much of the heat from the sun.

    That’s why they are called “Greenhouse Gases.”

    But the analogy ends there.

    The glass traps the heat simply by blocking the currents of sun-heated air so they don’t escape the greenhouse, whereas greenhouse gases trap the sun’s heat near the earth in a different way.
    (…)

  38. Jim murphy says:

    henrychance says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:31 pm
    The enlightened elite class.
    One day the people will get tired of subsidizing this fiasco.

    I thought you were referring to the monarchy

  39. jorgekafkazar says:

    My opinion of Philip just went up 1000%. Maybe he doesn’t watch the BBC or read the other Warmist propaganda outlets.

  40. Smokey says:

    Our British cousins should enjoy this.

  41. theduke says:

    This duke doesn’t like windmills either. Especially those at Altamont.

  42. DirkH says:

    Jeremy says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:31 pm
    “Absolutely. Nobody wants a coal-fried power station in their backyard either.”

    I wouldn’t mind.
    Here’s a photo of the Frankfurt power plant, smack bang in the middle of the city near the railway station, surrounded by office buildings and apartment buildings.

  43. DirkH says:

    DirkH says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:45 pm
    Sorry, forgot the link:
    http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/display/18902493

  44. Ric Werme says:

    binny says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    > Part of Philip’s job is to say things the Queen can’t.

    Makes sense. All this time I figured he occupies a high enough seat in the royalty and the queen still likes him, so no one can correct him. Or maybe he just missed out on the political correctness implant.

    This look like some seriously big turbines. Glad they’re not in my back yard!

  45. Mycroft says:

    Good old Phil. Even better than his “slanty eyes” comment a few years ago, even with all his faults he will not suffer fools…….as Mr Wilmar found out

  46. Gail Combs says:

    HUMMMmmmmm,

    Perhaps the publicity about modern windmills being bird and bat shredders is getting a bit too loud and this is the beginning of a bit of back pedaling. Can’t wake up the “Useful Innocents” now can we.

    But not to worry. Over a year ago James Delingpole reported that Global Cooling was on the Bilderberg agenda. I wonder what the next scam they are hatching will be??? Ocean Acidification??? Loss of oxgen in the air from burning fossil fuel???

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/

    “The common enemy of humanity is man.
    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
    with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
    water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
    dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
    changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
    The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
    ~ Club of Rome

    If they wish to continue to herd us they must come up with something new, or perhaps not.

    With the EU and the World Trade Organization they have done a very good job of transferring national sovereignty FROM the nation states (people) to a bunch of unelected international bureaucrats. “Harmonization” of laws and the WTO riding roughshod over national wishes when there are clashes means there has been a definate shift. So we already have a “Global Government” of sorts and most people are not even aware of it. The intentional collapse of the EU and USA and the rise of China and India has shifted the balance of power furthering the push towards “Global Governance”

    So How far along are they???
    International Conference on Harmonization (pharmacuticals & Medical Devices) http://www.ich.org/
    International Tax Harmonization – http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTPA/Resources/Velayos-Villela-Barreix.pdf
    Harmonization of International Commercial Law – http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Unification_Harmonization1.htm
    Good Farming Practices – http://www.oie.int/doc/en_ListDocument.php?line_0%5Bvalue%5D=3573905&line_0%5Bfield%5D=descripteur&typerec=Index
    Good Agricultural Practices – http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/
    Harmonization of Criminal Law – http://www.tni.org/article/global-enforcement-regimes
    EU – http://www.cicerofoundation.org/pdf/lecture_vermeulen.ppt
    Cybercrime ~ http://www.cybercrimelaw.net/documents/cybercrime_history.pdf

    Food and drug law harmonization is almost complete and they are working on the rest even a International currency http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/256/

  47. Phillip Bratby says:

    In that picture are 8 turbines, each probably rated at 2MW. Given a typical load factor of 25%, on average they produce as much power (4MW) as is consumed by a large pump motor at a conventional power station. That pump motor is about the size of a car, not the size of 24 jumbo jet wings on giant towers. The pump motor works continuously at full power, not intermittently when the wind blows at the right speed.
    That just about says it all.

  48. John F. Hultquist says:

    O H Dahlsveen & Willis E
    RE “electricity is conducted away” How?

    I live in Washington State where the Columbia River dams provide much electrical power. Transmission lines (towers) have been part of the system for many years. Locally, wind turbans are established near the existing lines and feed to them. New towers and lines have not been built – and likely not possible.

  49. 1DandyTroll says:

    They also get paid for the electricity they do produce and, of course, they get paid to not produce electricity as well as in not to overload the net.

    So on top the current subsidized package (500 million at a meagre 2% production, what will it cost at 10%?), all paid for by the huddled masses called the british tax paying collective, who then kindly has to pay over the market price to the same corporations (just as in Cali), and of course the profit from producing and not producing is quickly spirited out of the country all legal.

    I really like the set up though, it’s really nifty to get the customer to pay for the wind farms at the same time they pay for the equivalent in MWe of new coal fired power plants, so they can get pre paid nuclear power plants as well, and still ending up raking in the original investment plus the cream of the profit from all the parts in the “trinity” package. What if an automobile manufacturer could get the same … we’d be reinventing soviet industries. :p

    Is it any wonder that they need to add more energy based taxes that they need to keep raising ad bonkers?

  50. Bryan says:

    On the BBC programme “question time” last Thursday a member of the public asked the panel(mainly politicians) the following question.
    Why do poor people like widows have £50 added to their electricity bills to subsidise the owners of large estates who use their land to erect subsidised windmills.
    The politicians were stumped.
    The Labour member then said the last year he was in Latin America.
    In his absence his mother had her electricity cut off because she could not afford to pay the bill.
    A significant and growing section of the population are now classed as being in “fuel poverty”.
    They are then entitled to a means tested help with the bill.
    Official figures show that 27,000 people died of hypothermia last year in the UK.
    When will the madness stop?

  51. Wayne Delbeke says:

    Dave Springer says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm
    Teh windmills are better looking than oil wells that’s for sure. Teh windmills don’t smell bad like oil wells either. Developed oil fields are nas-tee.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Sorry Dave. Couldn’t disagree with you more. I live on a farm surrounded by oil and gas wells, I have one on my land, and several adjacent. Never see them as they are screened by trees. Try screening a wind mill ….

  52. John Page says:

    The Dutchman should have known better than to repeat royal comments. Goodness knows what he was thinking of. The phrases sound authentic, though. The Telegraph has also reported today that “following complaints about the noise of rotating blades from nearby residents, operators have agreed to switch off the machines or reduce their speed when the wind is blowing too strongly”. You couldn’t make it up.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8901431/Switch-off-for-noisy-wind-farms.html

    The Welsh aren’t keen on them.

    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2011/11/09/pay-attention-to-protests-against-wind-farms-peer-tells-govenment-91466-29748924/

    Nor are the Dutch.

    http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/4358-dutch-fall-out-of-love-with-windmills.html

    As Matt Ridley has put it:

    “To persist with a policy of pursuing subsidized renewable energy in the midst of a terrible recession, at a time when vast reserves of cheap low-carbon gas have suddenly become available is so perverse it borders on the insane. Nothing but bureaucratic inertia and vested interest can explain it.”

    http://www.newgeography.com/content/002509-gas-against-wind

    Wind farms are bad economics AND bad politics.

  53. Thinking Heretic says:

    @Joshualdo
    France & Germany. We (I speak only for England – although the Welsh/Irish/Scots have been involved!) have had the occasional disagreement with each over the last few centuries, if memory serves.

  54. Dave says:

    Latitude says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    Dave says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    Bruce. I think that at one time the WWF, Greenpeace Etc.. really were decent well intended protectors of Nature and our Natural world
    ============================================
    Dave, I’m not picking on you….you just mentioned WWF and Greenpeace in the same post… ;)

    HI Latitude.
    I;m am not offended and agree with your statement, I too am sickened by the same crowd, but I did know some early Greenpeace members here in Vancouver and they weren’t the same tyrants, liars, money grabbers and bully’s we see today. In fact they are now skeptics of more than just the climate issue but the whole Eco fascist movement and are despised and hated by the present green gang including the zealot Suzuki another high living Vancouver Hypocrite.

    PS. I always enjoy your comments and input.
    Dave.

  55. Carl Chapman says:

    Don’t get too carried away with the Duke. He’s against wind power but not because it’s an expensive way to give people the energy they need. He’s against it because he believes there are too many people and they shouldn’t be allowed energy. When asked about reincarnation, he said he would come back as a deadly virus to reduce the earth’s population.

    He’s not a sensible middle of the road person. He’s so far green that he believes we shouldn’t even have windmills.

    It exposes the quandary of the radical greens. They can’t just say “No energy. Die”, so they propose useless windmills as a diversion on the path to their mad goal of no energy.

  56. TerryS says:

    O H Dahlsveen says:

    Willis – good article, but just out of interest, can you tell me how the electricity is conducted away from these, or any other, wind-turbines?

    Thinking about it, I am not convinced that they actually need to be connected to the grid. As far as I know the turbine owners get the money and ROC for generating the electricity. If they used the entire output from the turbine to, say generate heat, and don’t feed anything into the grid they would still get paid.
    When I get time I’ll have to look into it.

  57. DesertYote says:

    Anyone who recognizes my handle and remembers my normal attitude regarding these Marxists wrap-up in Environmentalist clothing, might be surprised by what I am about to say.

    The WWF, quite apart from any other organization was at one point more interested in wildlife then politics. A long-long time ago, they even supported “harvesting” (aka hunting) as a useful management technique, that could be used to generate the funds needed for other conservation efforts.

  58. son of mulder says:

    “Chris B says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    Isn’t that photo dramatically altered with Photoshop?”

    Looks like it to me as they give the impression of going round, which is pretty rare in my experience of seeing them.

  59. Myrrh says:

    So he doesn’t know what his wife and son have been up to? NIMBY, windfarms lucrative for them from a deal Charles put together.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323228/Queens-38m-year-offshore-windfarm-windfall–owns-seabed.html

    Get richer schemes great for some, Lizzie claims ownership of around 70% of the seabed around Britain.

    Still, good Philip said it. When it was covered on the Beeb’s press preview last night, it was downplayed to being comment about the lack of wind at times and ‘as if that hasn’t been taken into consideration’ fudge and they moved swiftly on…

    Charles not quite the environmental goody two shoes he makes out he is, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/prince-charles-environment-estate_n_1076276.html

    The funniest though is Charles and his Aston Martin, he had it converted to run on wine.. :)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/2223663/Prince-Charless-Aston-Martin-is-wine-powered.html

  60. Gail Combs says:

    Jeremy says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    Absolutely. Nobody wants a coal-fried power station in their backyard either……
    _______________________
    ERRRrrrr I am sitting here and when I look up I see through the window a Coal fired plant AND a Nuclear plant. I can even sometimes hear them talking if the wind is right.

    I figure if I am pro-nuclear I am going to live near one because I am not a hypocrite.

  61. SandyInDerby says:

    Interesting stuff in the UK Sunday Times (printed version).

    Jonathan Leake (Environment Editor)
    Quoting Professor David MacKay chief advisor to DECC. (Department of Environment and Climate Change)

    1 gigawatt power station = 1400 onshore windturbines

    Area required to supply Europe with electrical power = 140,000 square miles (1.5x UK land area)

    Area required to supply 1 car with biofuel for one year = 158 acres

    Covering the windiest 10% of the UK in windturbines would generate one 6th Uk’s energy needs.

    An area of the sahara the size of Germany would be required to supply Europe’s energy needs by solar power. (No mention of night or supply lines to Northern Europe though.)

    Apparently Prof MacKay soesn’t want to undermine the country’s plans to meet 20% of energy demands from renewables from 2020. He simply wanted to make clear the scale of the engineering challenge and environmental impact of covering so much of the land with turbines, solar farms or biofuel planatations. So finally an academic who is also a political advisor sees the blindingly obvious.

  62. Jimmy Haigh says:

    “Chris B says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm
    ‘Isn’t that photo dramatically altered with Photoshop?”

    They’ve Photoshopped out all the dead birds and replaced them with live sheep.

    Sheep don’t fly.. as much as plummet.

  63. Claude says:

    Being able to see the housing of the 3rd windmill through the blur of the left blade of the most forward windmill looks genuine. So does the fact that the blur increases the farther out one looks along a blade. The blur is probably just a matter that the camera shutter speed wasn’t fast enough to freeze the blades in time.

  64. Robin Hewitt says:

    Standing on the Great Wall of China, the Duke suggested to some tourists that they didn’t stay too long lest they become, “Yellow and slitty eyed”. The press went wild, “How could he insult his hosts like that?” Then someone tried for an angry Chinese reaction to this ghastly faux pas. Turned out they thought yellow and slitty was a lot more attractive than pasty and bulging.

    We Brits have a curious relationship with our Royals, I’ve lived here for 60 years and I couldn’t explain it.

  65. Bigred (Victoria, Australia) says:

    Check out the growing opposition to windfarms – on health grounds – from this Downunder group of heavy hitters. The Explicit Cautionary Notice makes particularly good reading. Will the banks continue to provide finance for these enterprises?

    http://waubrafoundation.com.au/

  66. It is ironic but most pleasing that it should be a Duke who declared
    publicly that the Green Emperor has no clothes.

  67. Gail Combs says:

    TomRude says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    How about that ABC News new stunt?….
    ____________________
    Yes I notice it is about “Greenhouse Gases” but no one states CO2 is about 0.0360% while water vapor is up to 4% of the atmosphere. Or that Water Vapor accounts for about 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect or that man’s total contribution is a whopping 0.28%. Yeah about a quarter of a percent. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    The usual lies through misdirection and omission.

    Too bad the truth in advertising laws the water/dehydration fiasco ran into do not apply to this.

    Ancient Climate Cycles Are Why Scientists Are Frightened

    Of course, there has been some greenhouse gas in the air, warming the earth, ever since life began … and, indeed, helping make life possible.

    And of course, climate change has always cycled up and down through the eons for various reasons, which is precisely why the world’s climate scientists are so frightened.

    They tell us that by burning ancient buried carbon (coal, oil and gas), which puts powerful invisible greenhouse gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) back up in the air, we are beginning to kick-start yet another natural warming cycle, but at a speed so unnaturally fast that civilization’s basic economies and water and food supplies are already under great stress….

    …the world’s climate scientists are so frightened because they see the end of their gravy train!

    Link again: http://news.yahoo.com/greenhouse-gases-weren-t-invisible-123052512.html;_ylt=ArNtBcCBaWeX66oj8ABCFJZVbBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTRvdWVla2cyBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBmb3IgeW91BHBrZwM3ZDI0MzViYi04YmI1LTM3YjgtOGZmNy1mOTVjYTUxMTFkOWEEcG9zAzcEc2VjA25ld3NfZm9yX3lvdQR2ZXIDMDFhZGM0YTAtMTM4Yy0xMWUxLTlmZmUtZDJmZjRkN2FhOTc5;_ylg=X3oDMTM1YmoxaTRmBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDYzVkNzgwMjYtYzI3YS0zYzdjLTkyNDAtMGIxZDk2ZGJkZjJlBHBzdGNhdAN3b3JsZHxldXJvcGUEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

  68. Steve in SC says:

    Ol Dukie is not as dumb as he looks. Good for him. Too bad his wife’s government is so dodgy.

    On the other hand, wind power does make a certain amount of sense when one is not anywhere near the grid. Put a meter on it and it becomes not so good. Windmills are basically local power extractors. When they are tried to be made into something they aren’t, trouble and failure results.
    They would be quite practical in Nowhere, Nevada or a deserted Island like the dry tortugas.

  69. R. Gates says:

    Funny to see the NIMBY attitude run all the way up to Royalty. I’ve never been a big fan the economic subsidies given to alternative energy, nor that given to oil companies for that matter. Products and technologies should able to stand on their own, without interference from the government. Can you imagine, for example, the absurdity of the government needing to subsidize Apple several years ago to help push the ipad to market? Superior technology will win the day and the more the government interferes to “guide” the market, the more dependent the market becomes on that very same “help” to make any money.

    This quote by Willis, however, requires a bit more comment:

    “Yikes! I’m too gobsmacked to even comment on that, other than to say I guess we know how they lost their Empire … not that the US is far behind …”
    ——–
    Before talking about the way the British lost their Empire, we might want to talk about how they created. Of course it was by the plundering and subjugation of dark-skinned people in far-away lands, and by the direct control of the economy by the Crown, allowing their corporate interests to call the shots and reap vast profits. One such corporate interest, directly controlled and connected to the British Crown was the East India company, whose worldwide economic reach included the trading of tea to the Colony in New England. The East India Company did not have to pay the high tariffs on the tea as did the smaller businesses, and thus controlled the marketplace thanks to the favorable treatment from the Crown. This really pissed off the merchants in Boston, and lead to the true Boston Tea Party, which was really about the too-close of an association between government and a big corporation.

    It was a good thing to see the British Empire collapse, as it freed millions of people from the distant control of the crown, just as it was a very good thing that the Colonists were successful in throwing off that very same control and the unfair market dominance of the East India company that went with it. What lessons this might have for the current and future U.S. Empire I will leave for another time.

  70. Dave says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    “Bruce. I think that at one time the WWF, Greenpeace Etc.. really were decent well intended protectors of Nature and our Natural world”

    Not so, in my experience. There might have been small divisions with noble purpose within them, but I was opposing WWF submissions in 1975 because they were outrageous in any reasonable benefit:cost study.

    There was a public face and a hidden face and the latter was ugly.

  71. davidmhoffer says:

    Wayne Delbeke;
    Try screening a wind mill ….>>>

    What a waste of beer! And now my keyboard is all sticky too. Thanks a lot, lol!

  72. Andy says:

    You’ve gotta love him!

    I’ve always been a big fan of the Duke (or ‘Phil the Greek’ as he’s known here in the UK). He’s never cared what people think about him and has a great turn of phrase:
    Back in the 70s, whilst on a trip to Hong Kong, a member of the press kept badgering the Duke. Not realising his mike was on and he could be heard by all and sundry, Phil told the irritating journo, “F**k off or I’ll have you shot”.

    The man’s a star and having read his pronouncements about useless wind farms he’s just gone up in my estimation by another 2000%.

  73. davidmhoffer says:

    There’s another shoe yet to drop on the windfarm nonsense.

    How long will it be before some group of farmers sues the windfarms for altering the weather patterns downwind? A few sharp lawyers and a few climate studies…and presto! those windfarms ought to be responsible for drought, flooding, increased temperatures, decreased temperatures, earlier snow fall, later snowfall, more snowfall, less snowfall, extinction of symbiotic species like insect pollinators, increases in parasitic species, falling crop yields, falling milk yields, falling beef yields and falling down drunks.

    They ought to be able to come up with enough “science” to convince a judge, they don’t actually have to be right.

  74. Gail Combs says:

    Steve in SC says:
    November 20, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    On the other hand, wind power does make a certain amount of sense when one is not anywhere near the grid…. They would be quite practical in Nowhere, Nevada or a deserted Island like the dry tortugas.
    _________________________________
    Wind power is good for sailing ships, pumping water, maybe grinding grain. Anything that does not need a constant reliable source of energy. Otherwise they are just a money hole that needs constant repair.

  75. David Ball says:

    Dave Springer, after your posts on the Hansen thread, especially the one about the o-rings and the first shuttle disaster (wind shear,…. really, REALLY?), I am convinced that you are doing nothing but attempting to screw up every discussion on this site. I will no longer read or respond to anything you post from this point on. Perhaps someone will get you a clue for christmas, …..

  76. u.k.(us) says:

    R. Gates says:
    November 20, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    ===========
    Don’t forget the Nazi empire, that was crushed forever with help of the British Empire.

  77. Stephen Wilde says:

    “it was by the plundering and subjugation of dark-skinned people in far-away lands, and by the direct control of the economy by the Crown, allowing their corporate interests to call the shots and reap vast profits.”

    Actually it was by establishing settlements in largely vacant areas where the local inhabitants were warring groups.

    The activities of the settlements added value to the land by making use of available resources in imaginative ways that the locals never did. In doing so they added to the general prosperity of both themselves and the locals.The settlers themselves created the wealth by providing both the labour to make the local resources useful and the demand for those resources that created the so called wealth.

    In many cases they introduced a rule of law that led to societal stability that the locals had never previously experienced.

    Of course nasty things happened but nothing that the locals were not doing to each other already.

    The British Empire was based on trade not conquest. The only Empire ever created that was on balance more benign than malign. It was also the foundation for the modern world where the lives of peoples everywhere have been greatly lengthened and enhanced.

  78. John says:

    “Official figures show that 27,000 people died of hypothermia last year in the UK.
    When will the madness stop”

    That would be some 150 million a year saved in state pension then, maybe more.
    So if they manage to increase productivity and go for 50,000 this year…..they could pay a whole load more to Cameron and Cleggs relatives for the windfarms ?

  79. Dr. Dave says:

    Oh for crying out loud! C’mon…the line, “…The Artist currently known as Prince…” was absolutely priceless. And it goes ignored. Willis…that was genius.

  80. Judy F. says:

    OH Dahlsveen @12:37

    I live in the US andI have windtowers literally in my backyard. The power lines are buried in the ground from the towers to a substation. From that point the lines go overhead and the lines are carried on huge towers that traverse over a hundred miles. I live in a mostly agriculture community, but as there are more windfarms built, there are correspondingly more long transmission lines.

    When people ask why the farmers allowed the windtowers in, it was entirely an economic decision. We live in a dryland agriculture area ( no irrigation) and have 14-16 inches of precipitation a year. Farmers have struggled for years and the extra income was welcome. The amount paid to the farmers here is remarkably low, not near what I read some of the English landlords are getting.

    The local community colleges have wind tower technician programs, advertising careers in green industries. One of the local teachers often says that people forget that windtowers are still industrial machines, needing constant maintainence and lubricants to run them. Most people think of them as totally green, benign units, blissfully turning in the non-polluting wind, not being aware of the oil spilled on the ground, birds being killed and gallons of gas used to get workers places to maintain the units. Sometimes reality bites.

  81. R. Gates says:

    u.k.(us) says:
    November 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm
    R. Gates says:
    November 20, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    ===========
    Don’t forget the Nazi empire, that was crushed forever with help of the British Empire.
    ———
    I will never forget the Nazi “Empire”…nor the fact that it took combined efforts of the rest of the free world to take it down. The Brits (and soon the Americans) are far better off not being responsible for controlling a sprawling Empire around the world. But it seems a stage that some countries must go through.

  82. Robertvdl says:

    Renewable energy on the Canary Islands | Global Ideas

    El Hierro energy project.
    El Hierro is set to become the first island in the world to be powered solely by renewable energy. The $87 million project will provide electricity for the island’s 11,000 inhabitants using a combination of wind power and pumped water storage.
    Like many remote islands, El Hierro generates electricity with diesel oil transported from mainland terminals by oil tanker. The carbon impact is significant – in El Hierro’s case it amounts to 18,200 tons of CO2 per year in power generation emissions alone, an impact that the renewable energy project will eliminate.
    http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/2445a8fea944fac8c125789b00507caa.aspx

    El Hierro, Releasing Toxic Gases

  83. I do think a line of windmills is elegant and beautiful. I’m against them because they kill birds and bats, as well as intermittent in producing electricity.

  84. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Don’t forget the Nazi empire, that was crushed forever with help of the British Empire.”

    In fact, the British Empire crushed it with the help of the USA.

    And the British Empire was pretty much bankrupted having to pay the USA for that help. Wasn’t one of the US Presidents of the view that dismantling the British Empire would be a good thing ?

  85. Adam Reeve says:

    “Two-thirds of the country’s wind turbines are owned by foreign companies, which are estimated to reap £500 million a year in subsidies.” Beggars belief! UK citizens please sign the following ePetition:- http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22704

  86. R. Gates says:

    Stephen Wilde says:

    “Actually it was by establishing settlements in largely vacant areas where the local inhabitants were warring groups.”
    ——–
    That’s an interesting re-write and spin on the subjugation of one group by another. Sucking out the vast riches of foreign lands by use of local cheap (and often slave) labor was what built the British, French and Spanish Empires. In the case of the Brits, the Crown became enormously wealthy by direct association with corporations that exploited this foreign wealth. This same model holds today with some of the same old players still involved, and some new faces in the game…i.e. the U.S. and China.

  87. u.k.(us) says:

    R. Gates says:
    November 20, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    “…..nor the fact that it took combined efforts of the rest of the free world to take it down.”
    ============
    Yes, it has been proven time and again, it is best not to have your armies in the Russian steppes, in the middle of winter.
    First with Napoleon, then Hitler made the same mistake.

  88. Jeremy says:

    R. Gates says: “Funny to see the NIMBY attitude run all the way up to Royalty. I’ve never been a big fan the economic subsidies given to alternative energy, nor that given to oil companies for that matter.”

    You’ve got be JOKING. Subsidies to oil companies???? Absolute garbage. The Oil Industry globally pays north of ONE TRILLION a year in royalties, taxes, signing bonuses etc. The Oil Industry probably pays more percentage taxes than any other industry in the world, with possibly the exception of alcohol and tobacco.

    Clearly, you Sir, haven’t go a clue.

  89. VMartin says:

    • I’m wondering if any commenters here have done any analysis on something contained in this article…….. http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/comment-page-1/#comment-3244 You don’t have to read the whole article as here is one small paragraph near the bottom that clearly makes the point….
    In November 2009, Kent Hawkins, a Canadian electrical engineer, published a detailed analysis on the frequency with which gas-fired generators must be cycled on and off in order to back up wind power. Hawkins findings: the frequent switching on and off results in more gas consumption than if there were no wind turbines at all. His analysis suggests that it would be more efficient in terms of carbon dioxide emissions to simply run combined-cycle gas turbines on a continuous basis rather than use wind turbines backed up by gas-fired generators that are constantly being turned on and off. Hawkins concludes that wind power is not an “effective CO2 mitigation” strategy “because of inefficiencies introduced by fast-ramping (inefficient) operation of gas turbines.”</p?
    Essentially what Kent Hawkins is saying is that those who think that they are supporting wind turbines for purely environmental reasons (even if only CO2 was the environmental issue being considered in a narrow analysis) are totally deluded…. CO2 is reduced by absolutely zero. Can some of the smart folks here comment on the veracity of what Hawkins is saying?
    By the way, there is a related issue which I’ll mention in passing. It is much harder on power plant equipment to ‘load follow’ than it is to be base loaded…..particularly when the load following resembles a yo yo on steroids and this is what happens when gas or coal has to respond to the constant ups and downs of wind. Mechanical equipment simply doesn’t lasts near is long when it run at anything other than constant speed and load. …. The constant fluctuations (temperatures, pressures, speeds, stresses etc) are very hard on it with metal fatigue being one of the most common. It is like comparing how long one’s car lasts with freeway driving as opposed to city driving where there is a stop-start every 200 yards.

  90. Chris B says:

    Chris B says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm
    Isn’t that photo dramatically altered with Photoshop?

    Seriously, the photo in the attached link shows the turbine blades stopped, but the sheeep are in identical positions. What’s up?

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/12/uk-britain-energy-reforms-idUKTRE76B5IK20110712

  91. Ian Hoder says:

    Windmills are highly subsidized by taxpayers, don’t serve much of any useful purpose and make a lot of noise. You would think the Duke would be in favor of them.

  92. leesholive says:

    Windmill….not a beauty statement an eneergy problem showing up as another scar on the landscape. Electrolysis–hydrogen–clean power ???????
    I wonder. Power from water is nothing new and can be produced on a small or a large scale. It can even power vehicles by filling up with water. This energy source will never be realized though. Why ? Not because it doesnt work but because it works too well and the individual could free him/herself from the power companies grip. Then Water would be even more expensive and even more controlled. Isnt that what the energy power mongwers want…control…power…wealth. That is the real reason green energy ideas fail.

  93. davidmhoffer says:

    R. Gates;
    That’s an interesting re-write and spin on the subjugation of one group by another….
    This same model holds today with some of the same old players still involved, and some new faces in the game…i.e. the U.S. and China.>>>

    Can you provide a list of these countries that the U.S. has subjugated for profit? Or how about just one?

    (Nice to see you being an apologist for something other than the made up science of the team by the way. You still are making up history to fit your political view mind you, so that part remains unchanged)

  94. the beast of traal says:

    Gail Combs says: November 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm
    If you are going to pretend to quote something:
    “The common enemy of humanity is man.
    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up…”

    You must try to quote the actual document (pg 75):

    —————————
    The real quote:
    http://www.archive.org/download/TheFirstGlobalRevolution/TheFirstGlobalRevolution.pdf
    The common enemy of humanity is Man
    In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.
    In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.
    All these dangers are caused by human intervention In natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
    —————————–
    somewhat different!

  95. davidmhoffer says:

    Vmartin;
    The constant fluctuations (temperatures, pressures, speeds, stresses etc) are very hard on it with metal fatigue being one of the most common.>>>

    Yes, the life of the plant gets much reduced when it cannot be run in a “steady state”. Also, maximum efficiency is achieved within a narrow band of parameters. This cannot be achieved when the load is fluctuating. Plus, when the wind picks up and the load on the plant drops, you can’t just ramp it down instantly, it has to cool off gradually or things will crack, etc, so all the fuel required to ramp it down smoothly is essentially wasted. Similarly, one can’t just ramp it up in an instant, so one either has to suffer brown outs (or in extreme cases a complete failure) or else protect from them by keeping the plant at operating conditions even when the capacity isn’t required, and if that is the strategy, then all THAT heat just gets wasted too. Plus, you have to build the plant with excess capacity to cover those times when there is no wind power, and that excess capacity is extremely expensive from a capital perspective as well as from a maintenance perspective.

    The notion that an intermittant power source like the wind can be economical at all is belied by the gigantic government incentives required for anyone to build one. Without those incentives, there wouldn’t be any wind mills generating electricity except perhaps as an experiment. But the cost to the rest of the grid is massive.

  96. Smokey says:

    traal says:

    “somewhat different!”

    Nope.

  97. Jim Murphy. You just made yourself look stupid

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8124022.stm
    29 Jun 2009 – The Royal Family cost every UK person 69p last year

    That does not take into account the revenue generated by tourism by said Monarchy. The Yanks are fascinated by them. Who would YOU want? Brenda, with her splendid smile, or the insipid Obama? I’ll stick with the Monarchy thanks.

  98. the beast of traal says:

    Picture of turbines in heading are taken with extreme telephoto to maximise the impact.
    Use Google earth to see the impact at street level:
    53.407422° -4.403961°

    Now compare this to the nuclear station (980MW) close by (due for decommissioning)
    53.415542° -4.481729°

    Which has most visual impact now? Which will cost most to decommission?

  99. davidmhoffer says:

    R. Gates;
    The Brits (and soon the Americans) are far better off not being responsible for controlling a sprawling Empire around the world. But it seems a stage that some countries must go through.>>>

    Again R, Gates, can you idenitfy the countries that belong to this sprawling American empire?

  100. timebandit says:

    You see it turns out that Guy Fawkes was right… Had he succeeded in blowing up the Houses of Parliament and returned power to the monarchy as was his intent, ‘Phil the Greek’ would now be in a position to do something about the windmills, they may never have been built in the 1st place… sadly Guido didnt light the blue touch paper fast enough!!!

  101. philincalifornia says:

    Dr. Dave says:
    November 20, 2011 at 4:49 pm
    Oh for crying out loud! C’mon…the line, “…The Artist currently known as Prince…” was absolutely priceless. And it goes ignored. Willis…that was genius.
    ==================

    Some may have caught it ….

    ……. and even more priceless (ha ha) is the fact that he’s a neomonarchist. How can you beat that for delicious irony ??

    God save the Queen.

  102. Kum Dollison says:

    That’s strange. Iowa gets 20% of its electricity from wind.

    And, Wind has an over 80% Approval Rating in Iowa.

    I wonder what the “Duke’s” approval rating is.

  103. davidmhoffer says:

    Kum Dollison says:
    November 20, 2011 at 7:18 pm
    That’s strange. Iowa gets 20% of its electricity from wind.>>>

    In 2010 and in 2009, Iowa led the U.S. in the percentage of electrical power generated by wind, at 15.4 percent and 14.2 percent

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

    Considerably more than I would have thought, but considerably less than 20%.
    That said, the cost they are paying is high because they don’t count the lost efficiency and spilled power of the mainstream power plants in the equation.

  104. R. Gates says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 20, 2011 at 6:00 pm
    R. Gates;
    That’s an interesting re-write and spin on the subjugation of one group by another….
    This same model holds today with some of the same old players still involved, and some new faces in the game…i.e. the U.S. and China.>>>

    Can you provide a list of these countries that the U.S. has subjugated for profit? Or how about just one?

    —————–
    Really? Have you no real grasp of history or the dynamics of economic interest that actually control most foreign policy? Do you think think the Philippine-American war was about spreading “freedom” or about preserving American Empire?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

    Or how about the hundreds of U.S. Bases that are sprawled around the world? Are these really about “security” or about preserving economic interests?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_bases_in_the_world_2007.svg

    That true fiscal conservative, Ron Paul has rightly questioned the need of spending the billions we do to keep these bases open…but of course he hasn’t a chance in ever getting elected. Regardless, over time, the U.S. will be forced to significantly scale back its foreign interventions, as it simply will not be able to maintain such a global sprawl without so grossly ignoring the actual infrastructure of the homeland that it risks falling into another great depression or extreme civil unrest.

  105. Noelene says:

    The Prince Philip who returned to Britain at the start of 1946 was a markedly different young man to the one who had left her shores six years earlier to serve in the Royal Navy. In place of the bold if inexperienced young officer, there now stood an acknowledged war hero, a First Lieutenant whose bravery and maturity had been recognised in despatches and who had been present in Tokyo Bay to witness Japan’s historic signing of the surrender that ended the second world war. Furthermore, the Prince returned with the understanding that he had also captured the heart of Princess Elizabeth. Yet the courtship faced immediate hurdles, in the form of establishment expectations and social snobbery
    Courting Elizabeth:
    His detractors pointed out that Philip’s propensity for speaking his mind, and his refusal to follow convention when it came into conflict with his principles, might prove a liability in this high-profile .and sensitive role.
    End
    They got that right,looks like he has stayed true to self.
    Nothing of an artist about him Willis,he was a decorated war hero.He deserves respect.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/dec/28/monarchy.davidsmith

  106. Noelene says:

    Correction
    He is a decorated war hero.He is still alive,breathing fire,long may it last.

  107. Marc Dacey says:

    I love windmills and think they are great, but only when the power they generate is used to crack hydrogen out of water, which can then be burned in a co-generation plant nearby for when the wind stops.

    Wind power alone feeding randomly into the grid is like building a lovely car with only one wheel. You haven’t thought the process through. You must have a means of storage what you make. My expertise here is due to designing a multi-charge source system for my offshore-destined sailboat. I have four large solar panels, a 400W wind gen and two fairly modest alternators. And a couple of Honda 2000s if I suffer a pretty comprehensive failure somewhere. I have a fairly oversized battery bank because I want independence from shore. That takes money, planning and careful design to make sure you neither charge too enthusiastically or drain too rapidly. My goal is to never burn diesel to spin alternators to charge batteries….I’m happy to do so while actually motoring, however.

    The same principles apply to wind farms. Hydrogen electrolysis makes transitory charges storable. Here’s a nice setup in an isolated…and windy…part of Newfoundland:

    http://canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/eng/renewables/wind_energy/ramea_island.html

    and a more recent report: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/building-innovation-in-canada/newfoundland-island-helps-fuel-winds-of-change/article2231438/

    To my mind, this is the only sensible way to do wind power, as if you lived on a boat that didn’t carry an extension cord.

  108. davidmhoffer says:

    R. Gates;
    Really? Have you no real grasp of history or the dynamics of economic interest that actually control most foreign policy? Do you think think the Philippine-American war was about spreading “freedom” or about preserving American Empire?>>>

    I repeat:

    Please name the countries that have been “subjugated” by the United States.
    Please name the countries that are part of the “American Empire”.

    I didn’t ask you what drove American foreign policy. You claimed that the United States has “subjugated” other countries and has a “sprawling empire”. The drivers behind foreign policy were not your claim. Answer the question asked of you to substantiate the claim you made. Don’t try and change the subject, it just makes you look foolish.

  109. davidmhoffer says:

    Please name the countries that have been “subjugated” by the United States.

    My apologies re the above, I mean to say:

    Which countries have been “subjugated” by the United States for PROFIT.

  110. Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta says:

    Hey Springer! Here’s a “developed oil field” for you. Without the drilling rig’s derrick to high-light the location of the well for you, you wouldn’t even know it was there. But it is there and this single well will produce more energy than all the wind-mills in the state of Montana combined. As usual with you real deniers (of sense and science), you never let a little thing like a fact get in the way of your fear-mongering.

    http://v2.nonxt3.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/42881084.jpg?redirect_counter=1

  111. Kum Dollison says:

    Iowa seems to have gone from 15% of electricity provided by Wind to 20% provided by Wind in one year. That means, in 4 years they could be up to the 40% that many, there, are aiming for.

    No wonder the fossil fuel sockpuppets are having a stroke.

  112. Ian L. McQueen says:

    Wind developers should be forced to contract to deliver a given amount of power and to pay for make-up power if they can’t deliver. At the moment, any power produced by wind turbines and fed to the grid is paid for, but it is the owner of the grid who must pay for any back-up power required. A marvellous financial model for the wind developer but a sucker’s game for the grid owner.

    IanM

  113. tokyoboy says:

    Sorry OT: a request to Willis….
    I’m unable to get to the source data, which you took from National Geographic, for Figure 1 in your previous post:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/make-29-on-your-money-guaranteed/

    Could you please guide me to the data page? Thanks.

  114. Kum Dollison says:

    Actually, I think more “spinning” reserve has to be kept for Fossil Fuels, and Nuclear than for Wind, or Solar.

    500 MW Coal/Gas plants, and 1,000 MW Nuclear Plants can go down in a split second, and stay down for months. Wind, on the other hand, is more “distributed,” and people are finding that they can “predict” Windy/Sunny conditions hours, if not days, in advance.

    Of course, the neatest thing about Wind/Solar is that you can predict the cost of your “feedstock” one hundred years into the future with 100% Accuracy. Coal, Uranium, and Gas? Not so much.

  115. R. Gates says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 20, 2011 at 8:23 pm
    Please name the countries that have been “subjugated” by the United States.

    My apologies re the above, I mean to say:

    Which countries have been “subjugated” by the United States for PROFIT.
    ———-
    No difference between the two. Did you think I threw out the Philippines as an example for my own health? Did you think our subjugation of the people there was for anything other than profit?Did you think our overthrow of the democratically elected ruler of Iran in 1953 by the CIA and the subjugation of the Iranian people via the U.S. Backed puppet Shah was about anything other than the vast profits to be had in the oil fields of that nation? Really Mr. Hoffer, are you that dense?

  116. davidmhoffer says:

    Kum Dollison says:
    November 20, 2011 at 8:50 pm
    Iowa seems to have gone from 15% of electricity provided by Wind to 20% provided by Wind in one year. That means, in 4 years they could be up to the 40% that many, there, are aiming for.
    No wonder the fossil fuel sockpuppets are having a stroke>>>

    Governor Terry Branstad warns Iowa’s wind energy industry will be “severely damaged” if the federal tax credit for wind energy is allowed to expire at the end of 2012 – Radio Iowa

    Who is having the stroke? The industry that can’t survive without tax breaks, subsidies and gaurnateed prices higher than what any other supplier gets for their product. The wind industry is full of hot air and the moment they are bo longer propped up by the tax payer, they will collapse like a hot air baloon with no more fuel source.

  117. David A says:

    the beast of traal says:
    November 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm
    Picture of turbines in heading are taken with extreme telephoto to maximise the impact.
    Use Google earth to see the impact at street level:
    53.407422° -4.403961°
    Now compare this to the nuclear station (980MW) close by (due for decommissioning)
    53.415542° -4.481729°

    Which has most visual impact now? Which will cost most to decommission?

    traal, nuclear plants pay as the go for decommission. Wind has some requirements for the same, but for the most part do not pay as they go, and if (when) they go broke, well good luck collecting. Compare the acerage of a nuclear plant, and the materials, and the power produced, to wind generatet power,. Wind is far higher in acerage and materials, many orders of magnitude, for the same power generating capacity..

  118. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Kum Dollison says:
    November 20, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    That’s strange. Iowa gets 20% of its electricity from wind.

    And, Wind has an over 80% Approval Rating in Iowa.

    Federal subsidies to Iowa wind power keep it from bankrupting you. In other words, Kum, you are lining your pockets with money taken from my pocketbook to fulfill your green fantasies.

    Why on earth should I subsidize your not-ready-for-market power? What is Iowa to me? When you can do it without my help, come back and boast. Until then, as far as I’m concerned you’re just a junkie stealing my wallet to pay for your wind addiction, and I would hesitate to boast about it so publicly.

    w.

  119. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Iowa … where wind makes up 20% of the electricity until either the windmills or the subsidies give out. The subsidies listed below don’t count the Federal subsidy for Iowa windplants.

    w.

    Iowa – Energy tax credit, solar rebates and incentives

    Iowa Renewable and Solar Energy Incentives

    Production Tax Credit for Renewable Energies (Residential/Commercial)

    Iowa offers two different production tax programs that are granted for purchasers of wind and other renewable energy systems.

    Iowa Code 476C: This tax credit is available to wind and other renewable energy systems. Renewable energy companies grant credit at a production rate of $0.015/kWh.
    Iowa Code 476B: Only wind energy systems are eligible for this production tax credit.
    Qualifying systems: Solar panel PV, electricity-generating solar thermal, biomass, wind, etc. Systems may only qualify for one of the two tax programs.
    The tax credit is sustained at a fix rate for no more than 10 years past the date at which the system was put into service.

    Property Tax Exemption (Residential)

    Properties that have a renewable energy system installed (wind power or solar PV) are granted a complete property tax exemption comparable to the net value added to the property due to the system.
    The maximum duration a property may take advantage of this tax exemption is 5 years.
    Qualifying systems must utilize clean resources to gather, supply and re-dispense generated power.
    Equipment Exemption for Wind Power and Solar Panel Systems (Residential/Commercial)

    Wind and solar renewable energy systems are exempt from sales tax, which incorporates installation costs.

    SOURCE

  120. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Noelene says:
    November 20, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    … Nothing of an artist about [the Duke] Willis,he was a decorated war hero.He deserves respect.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/dec/28/monarchy.davidsmith

    Noelene, the Duke sounds like a good guy. However, in your urge to find fault with me, you are not reading what I wrote. Let me repeat it (emphasis mine):

    The Duke’s eldest son, the Artist Currently Known As Prince, …

    This was a rather obscure play on words. Part 1. Prince Charles (the Duke’s son) is an artist of some small repute. Part 2. The rock and roll star named Prince lost the right to use his own name (imagine!) in a dispute with Sony over his contract. Fair enough, he signed the dang paper assigning them the rights to use his image, likeness, and brand, he had to live with the consequences.

    In any case, to bring attention to his claims and his case, until the contract expired he called himself “The Artist Formerly Known As Prince”.

    Combine that with Prince Charles being an artist, and you get “the Artist Currently Known as Prince” …

    … sorry, he said, ducking his head and exiting stage left …

    w.

  121. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    Carl Chapman: I believe that it was Prince Charles that said he wanted to be reincarnated as a virus, not his father Prince Phillip.

  122. Neil Jones says:

    The Article in the Telegraph is here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-philip/8901985/Wind-farms-are-useless-says-Duke.html

    It’s interesting that so far (07:44 CET 12st Nov 2011) the article has attracted over 2300 comments and the vast majority are in complete accord with his views.

  123. Neil Jones says:

    That should read 21st Nov 2011 – touch tryping strikes again

  124. Cassandra King says:

    “Two-thirds of the country’s wind turbines are owned by foreign companies, which are estimated to reap £500 million a year in subsidies.”

    More than enough to buy hours of BBC air time in the form of extra long advertisements under the fabricated cover of ‘documentaries’ isnt it? More than enough money to bribe the WWF/RSPB/Greenpeace etc to turn a blind eye to the massacre of tens of thousands of birds and bats. Its ‘kick back city Arizona’ a veritable money tree where Mafia gangs and greedy landowners and bent politicians and crooked ‘charaties’ all rub shoulders as they feed from the golden trough of public funds. It matters not to the greedy, the selfish, the ideologue, the corrupt that the poor are paying the price and the price is unsustainable. The politicians who pimped this grotesque abomination will be brought to account? Made to pay the price? Made to face justice? You all know the answer to that already and that is the real tragedy isnt it? In this tragedy only the victims will suffer, only the victims will remember and pay the price, the perpetrators will fade like a summer morning mist to count their money and laugh at the victims.

    Never before has an industry been built and sustained on such eye watering corruption and run by so many moral degenerates for the singular benefit of the dregs of humanity. Harsh? No! The simple truth of it all, the basest of reasons, an appeal to greed of the worst sort driven by the most ugly and evil of all justifications, ‘the end justifies the means’. Never before has so many lies been told, so many people been bought off, so many people deceived, so much money been made/stolen/extorted. Where has the money gone, how much will ever be recovered when the shameful fraud of the modern age collapses? Offshore tax havens have swallowed vast amounts of money, it will never be traced, never be recovered, the damage will take decades to fix and for what?

  125. Manfred says:

    Marc Dacey says:
    November 20, 2011 at 8:13 pm
    ———————————–

    Yes, hydrogen storage has made progress during the last couple of years, but I think it is still terribly inefficient and expensive. How does hydrogen electrolysis, storage, and power generation compare with an simple battery in terms of cost ?

  126. Pete says:

    Maybe Phill the Greek (as he is affectionately known as in the U.K.) has had the time to read this

    “Vattenfall, has spent £500 million on building 30 five megawatt turbines with a total “capacity” of 150MW. What Shukman did not tell us, because the BBC never does, is that, thanks to the vagaries of the wind, these machines will only produce a fraction of their capacity (30 per cent was the offshore average in the past two years). So their actual output is only likely to average 45MW, or £11 million per MW.
    Compare this with the figures for Britain’s newest gas-fired power station, recently opened in Plymouth. This is capable of generating 882MW at a capital cost of £400 million – just £500,000 for each megawatt. Thus the wind farm is 22 times more expensive, and could only be built because its owners will receive a 200 per cent subsidy: £40 million a year, on top of the £20 million they will get for the electricity itself.”

    Not the sort of numbers people like Kum Dollison want us to know about Willis.

  127. wayne says:

    Kum Dollison:

    Wind energy developers should also be forced to pay for the birds and bats they kill. Let’s start off with $250,000 per eagle, $75,000 per hawk, seems that should do for starters though those figures might be a bit on the low side. When they are all shredded how much would the world pay to have them back? Rates can be inferred backwards from that value. That also might even give WWF and the like something to push out other than the hot CO2 eminating from their PR departments. Of course alternative these wind energy developers could just cover their gigantic windmills with chicken wire. Seems that should do it too. The power drop should be minimal. Ok with you?

    And like Willis I am more that tired of Ohio sapping tax dollars from the tax payers in other states with tax credits so you can blow your horn, to me it’s a bit like legal theft. Hey, you know, that gives me something to do tomorrow. With a bit of influence in Congress and friends with a whole lot more than myself that give me a whole new project, thanks Kum.

  128. Gareth Phillips says:

    Willis says : I thought so … your kind of green hypocrisy turns my stomach. Me, I’m not the kind of man like you, the kind that will happily eat the meat while blaming the butcher for being “nas-tee” …

    Gareth responds: Wow Willis! You are obviously learning from John Cook on how to promote debate! The comment you responded to was just that, a comment with no hate or malice. There is no need to respond in such a way. You have so much more potential. Have a look at the article on Lord Moncktons behaviour for some guidance on how unconstructive this sort of behaviour can be.

    But back to the debate. Should Dutch windmills be banned? If so, which ones and at what age? Whether something is an eyesore or not is a subjective issue. I live on an island with many many windmills, I hated them initially, but I must admit I don’t tend to notice them now. We also have a nuclear power station, which looks ok and an oil/gas terminal, which is ugly, but required. However if I were pressed to say which one was less visually intrusive, personally I would say the windmills at this point. Our farmers like them due to being still able to use marginal agricultural land for grazing while earning money from the Turbines. It’s worth noting that the majority of turbines tend to be situated in areas which are not good agricultural land. However the other major wind farm we have is off shore. It’s visible on the horizon and is apparently more efficient. Now that this trend has started I believe that will be the future of wind generated energy, I think it unlikely we will see the same level of land based turbine building in future.
    With regard to subsidies, that is an economic issue. We could hope that the Conservative government will address such issues quickly, but I’m not holding my breath. You may be pleased to know however that the domestic feed in tariff for energy generated from the home has been stopped. Lets hope that jet fuel is now taxed to show that we are all in this together and that it’s not just the little man who has to pay more every time there is an economic initiative.

  129. nc says:

    R. Gates says- Of course it was by the plundering and subjugation of dark-skinned people in far-away lands, and by the direct control of the economy by the Crown, allowing their corporate interests to call the shots and reap vast profits.

    Is this not the aim of the IPCC, WWF, Greenpeace etc. to keep the developing countries down and in doing so reap huge profits.

  130. Ulrich Elkmann says:

    Reminds you of someone you know (who also fought windmills):

    “…amigo Sancho Panza, donde se descubren treinta, o pocos más, desaforados gigantes [...] que ésta es buena guerra, y es gran servicio de Dios quitar tan mala simiente de sobre la faz de la tierra.”
    “Mire vuestra merced,” respondió Sancho, “que aquellos que allí se parecen no son gigantes, sino molinos de viento.”
    “Bien parece,” respondió don Quijote, “que no estás cursado en esto de las aventuras: ellos son gigantes.” [ch. VIII]
    [...for look there, friend Sancho Panza, where thirty or more monstrous giants present themselves [...] This is righteous warfare, and it is God’s good service to sweep so evil a breed from off the face of the earth.”
    “Look, your worship,” said Sancho; “what we see there are not giants but windmills.”
    “It is easy to see,” replied Don Quixote, “that thou art not used to this business of adventures; those are giants.”]
    For once, the Knight of the Sad Countenance was absolutely right.

  131. Gareth Phillips says:

    Living in Wales I can assure everyone that I have never heard of a bunch of wind turbines sliding down a hill into a school and killing hundreds of children. Or as a health professional I have never seen hundreds of thousands on workers slowly gasping their lives away because of wind powered dust. Or as someone who loves the Welsh countryside I really can’t agree that the hundreds of coal tips dumped in lovely countryside were not more intrusive and damaging than turbines. Sometimes, it’s not all about profit and loss.

  132. John Marshall says:

    The Duke is OK with windmills on the sea bed where they pay the subsidy into the family pockets so he is still the hypocrite he always was. As for Charles he still insists on subjecting us to his tirades about so many days to ‘save the earth’. He is the ultimate NIMBY in that he is advocating wind generation everywhere but his estates.

    Remember both these people are founder members of the Club of Rome!!

  133. Steve C says:

    Re. that throwaway line just before the end, most of the infrastructure of this country – energy, transport, communications, you name it – now seems to be owned by foreigners, not just the greenies’ prayerwheels. It is, of course, purest coincidence that it is also now largely falling apart as the value of our formerly publicly owned infrastructure leaches out of the country and into the pockets of the shareholders of the corporations they’re now a part of. I think they call it a “free” market, mostly because the 1% are now “free” to help themselves and blackmail the Gov for more subsidies, while the rest of us are now “free” to decide whether we can afford to heat our homes in the cold weather or not.

    It’s all getting very reminiscent of the old saw that “the law forbids the rich man, as well as the poor, to steal a loaf of bread, or sleep under a bridge”. If I sound cynical, blame a lifetime of watching this transfer of freedom from people to “markets” (corporations) and regulation from markets to people. Oh, and this time out I agree with the Duke, despite his expressed wish to be reborn as a lethal virus: at least he’s blunt and honest, unlike the mealy-mouthed petty functionaries who have torn our country apart.

  134. steveta_uk says:

    Two-thirds of the country’s wind turbines are owned by foreign companies, which are estimated to reap £500 million a year in subsidies.

    Keep in mind that the UK is part of this think called the EU, or Common Market, and that the article was in the Telegraph, which is fairly EU phobic.

    So in a US context, you might read this:

    Two-thirds of the state’s “insert thing here” are owned by out-of-state companies …

    Or, 1/3 are owned within the state – which is pretty good. Upscale to Europe, and you see there isn’t really an issue.

  135. David says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    November 21, 2011 at 12:44 am
    Living in Wales I can assure everyone that I have never heard of a bunch of wind turbines sliding down a hill into a school and killing hundreds of children. Or as a health professional I have never seen hundreds of thousands on workers slowly gasping their lives away because of wind powered dust. Or as someone who loves the Welsh countryside I really can’t agree that the hundreds of coal tips dumped in lovely countryside were not more intrusive and damaging than turbines. Sometimes, it’s not all about profit and loss.”

    Indeed it is not. However your post is all emotion, and no science or even statistics. Statistics demonstrate wind to be more deadly then nuclear as it is practiced in the world, and coal as it is practiced in the USA. Add in the destruction of world economies due to the CAGW panic, and the wars and riots that may well result, and it is indeed not all about monetary profit and loss.

  136. DirkH says:

    the beast of traal says:
    November 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm
    ““The common enemy of humanity is man.
    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up…”

    You must try to quote the actual document (pg 75):”

    Thanks, Beast Of Traal. The complete quote makes it even scarier.

  137. Kum Dollison says:

    For what it’s worth, Willis, I live in Mississippi. Not Iowa. Not a very scientific assumption on your part.

    You can get mad at me all you want, Bubba; but, I didn’t cause the 20th Century to leave you. It was just time; and it left. It’s the 21st Century, now, and China is paying $126.00/Tonne for coal, and importing 5 million barrels/day of oil, and diesel.

    Liquified Natural Gas is selling for $13.50 per thousand cuft in Asia, and we’re building LNG Export Facilities as quickly as it can be done. China is adding, by far, more Wind Power than any other country on Earth. You might want to ask yourself, “Why?”

    We get 40% of Our coal from the Powder River Basin, and most of the current mines operating there will be “played out” in 20 yrs. Maybe you’d care to ask, “what/where next?” The times they are a’changin’, son; time to move on.

  138. Bob Russell says:

    And Phil the Greek is not a foreign investor? And the Queen? Whole family of Germans if I’m not mistaken…..

  139. Alan the Brit says:

    For the first time ever, Willis, I find fault with something you have said, but rest assured, it’s a common mistake easily made, regarding our Empire. We did not lose it, we gave it back, & created the modern Commonwealth of which the Queen is still (a popular) Head! There is a huge difference between losing something & giving it back, although I admit we did so largely because we were flat broke at the end of WW2, helping to win the war as lead partner, until January 1945 when it was clear that Amercia was pouring in 3/4 of the manpower & equipment into the European conflict, still with much fierce fighting ahead. The US then took the lead role, that without fantastic US support it would have been impossible to win. I also hasten to remind all of the 300,000 men who served under the Stars & Stripes in that bloody campaign, & who gave their last full measure of devotion to the cause of liberation, freedom & democracy in Europe, something some in the PDREU seem to forget all too readily!!!!! They need reminding every now & then just who got us out of the sH1t on two occasions last century, & they didn’t really have to, but they did! :-)

  140. Roger Knights says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    November 21, 2011 at 12:44 am
    Living in Wales I can assure everyone that I have never heard of a bunch of wind turbines sliding down a hill into a school and killing hundreds of children.

    But the counter-argument could be made that wind farms kill indirectly, because their subsidies raise the price of power, causing more of the fuel-poor elderly to die of hypothermia.

  141. Roger Knights says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    November 21, 2011 at 12:44 am
    I have never seen hundreds of thousands on workers slowly gasping their lives away because of wind powered dust.

    But that’s not inherent in coal mining. Modern techniques can avoid it, or minimize it.

    Or as someone who loves the Welsh countryside I really can’t agree that the hundreds of coal tips dumped in lovely countryside were not more intrusive and damaging than turbines.

    But that’s offset, to some degree, by the ruination of the landscape, and contamination of the water, in China where the rare earths for these turbines are being mined.

  142. A. C. Osborn says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    November 21, 2011 at 12:44 am
    I agree that the health of the Coal Miners is a concern and the Coal tips could have been handled better.
    But how many families made their living based on Coal in Wales and how many would still like to be able to again?

  143. observa says:

    And to think you lot got rid of the Crown completely for a bunch of elected clowns! I’m with the ‘Duke’ but unfortunately the clowns are in charge of the circus everywhere-
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/in-hot-water-over-shower-head/story-e6freuy9-1226200126584
    Perhaps it’s an insidious virus strain that only attacks ‘whitefella’ brains?

  144. observa says:

    It puts ROCs in their heads and it RECs them!

  145. Smokey says:

    What a fun bunch of comments! Typical of the responses Willis generates. In response to a few:

    Kum Dollison says:

    “Iowa seems to have gone from 15% of electricity provided by Wind to 20% provided by Wind in one year. That means, in 4 years they could be up to the 40% that many, there, are aiming for.”

    So in only a dozen years or so Iowa could be exporting wind-generated electricity! And trees grow to the moon.

    Rhoda Ramirez says:

    “Carl Chapman: I believe that it was Prince Charles that said he wanted to be reincarnated as a virus, not his father Prince Phillip.”

    Actually, Prince Charles really wanted to be reincarnated as something else.

    And as usual the anti-American R. Gates doesn’t understand. The U.S. was in the Philippines, not to expand a mythical empire, but as a direct result of the Spanish-American war. America gave the Philippines an almost identical copy of the American Constitution, and left. Where was the greedy profit, Gates?

  146. JJThoms says:

    “Roger Knights says:
    But that’s offset, to some degree, by the ruination of the landscape, and contamination of the water, in China where the rare earths for these turbines are being mined.”

    ENERCON WECs produce clean energy without neodymium
    29.04. 2011
    ENERCON wind energy converters (WECs) generate electricity in an environmentally friendly way without the use of the controversial element, neodymium. The gearless WEC design on which all WEC types – from the E-33/330 kW to the E-126/7.5 MW – are based includes a separately excited annular generator.
    http://tinyurl.com/6lkadj7

  147. JJThoms says:

    A description of the removal of a windfarm:
    http://www.enercon.de/p/downloads/WB_0211_eng.pdf

    When ENERCON installed the Roggeplaat Wind Farm in The Netherlands in 1992,…

    At the end of June, ENERCON began taking down the first E-33 turbines. First the rotor blades, hub and nacelle were dismantled and removed by crane. Then the demolition digger broke through the walls of the 35-metre towers so that the crane could heave the towers off of the foundation base. «We just take the towers down and lay them on the ground,»
    explains ENERCON project manager, Din Rijniers. Later on a sub-contractor will come on site, rip out the foundation, and crush the tower and foundation concrete down into rubble
    which will then be reused to build the access roads and crane pads for the new E-82. They are scheduled to be installed starting in April 2012.

    So in 10 months most will be recycled (no storage for 10s of years) and the same site reused (no quarantine)

    Nuclear (wiki)
    Cost of decommissioningIn USA many utilities estimates now average $325 million per reactor all-up (1998 $).

    In France, decommissioning of Brennilis Nuclear Power Plant, a fairly small 70 MW power plant, already cost 480 million euros (20x the estimate costs) and is still pending after 20 years. Despite the huge investments in securing the dismantlement, radioactive elements such as Plutonium, Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60 leaked out into the surrounding lake.[66][67]

    In the UK, decommissioning of the Windscale Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor (WAGR), a 32 MW prototype power plant, cost 117 million euros.

    In Germany, decommissioning of Niederaichbach nuclear power plant, a 100 MW power plant, amounted to more than 143 million euros

    Time: “many” years some left in “safestore” for 30+years

    this ones interesting:
    USA Yankee Rowe PWR 185 MWe 31 years operating
    (1960–1991) DECON COMPLETED – Demolished
    (greenfield open to visitors) [14] $608 million with $8 million per year upkeep

  148. David says:

    Big respect to the Duke and his forthright views – for which he is well known. What is refreshing is that AT LAST a member of The Establishment here in the UK is stating what Basil Fawlty in ‘Fawlty Towers’ (hope you are familiar with it in the States) would describe as the bleedin’ obvious.
    As for Chris Huhne and his ‘elegant’ and ‘beautiful’ descriptions of these eyesores, I think he may be failing to identify that their sole purpose is to GENERATE ELECTRICITY…
    Talking of which – as I write, wind in the UK is contributing 0.9% of demand – or 12% of installed capacity. Big deal.
    Eventually, even Dave Cameron, despite the fact that his father-in-law is making £1000/week from the things, will have to concede that this medieval technology has no place in the 21st century, when increasing numbers of voters are in fuel poverty…

  149. observa says:

    Meanwhile JoNova recognises a lot of red faced pseudo-scientists and their caravan of hangers on heading for the exits-
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/ipcc-scientists-test-the-exit-doors/#comment-721153
    and note the new kid on the block as they all morphed over the years from Global Warming to Climate Change and now ,,,wait for it… Climate Vulnerable! These people have no shame to match their credibility.

  150. Blade says:

    Jimmy Haigh [November 20, 2011 at 3:07 pm] says:

    “They’ve Photoshopped out all the dead birds and replaced them with live sheep.”

    ROTFLMAO Thread Winner!

    Willis, tell him what he’s won …

  151. ozspeaksup says:

    Robertvdl says:
    November 20, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Renewable energy on the Canary Islands | Global Ideas

    El Hierro energy project.
    El Hierro is set to become the first island in the world to be powered solely by renewable energy. The $87 million project will provide electricity for the island’s 11,000 inhabitants using a combination of wind power and pumped water storage.
    Like many remote islands, El Hierro generates electricity with diesel oil transported from mainland terminals by oil tanker. The carbon impact is significant – in El Hierro’s case it amounts to 18,200 tons of CO2 per year in power generation emissions alone, an impact that the renewable energy project will eliminate.
    http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/2445a8fea944fac8c125789b00507caa.aspx

    El Hierro, Releasing Toxic Gases

    ================
    with near 11000 quakes and eruptions ongoing…baaad idea.
    with all the volcanos on and around you think theyd tap that…

  152. RichieP says:

    ‘Chris B says:
    November 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    Chris B says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm
    Isn’t that photo dramatically altered with Photoshop?

    Seriously, the photo in the attached link shows the turbine blades stopped, but the sheeep are in identical positions. What’s up?’

    I think you need to get over it – it’s just a stock library photo, not some significant piece of evidence for or against anything.

  153. ozspeaksup says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 20, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    Please name the countries that have been “subjugated” by the United States.

    My apologies re the above, I mean to say:

    Which countries have been “subjugated” by the United States for PROFIT.
    ============
    Iraq springs to minmd as a fairly recent one.
    total control over food production sales and finances. iraq bill 81 I think it is?
    and they want to make Aus state 52 it seems..
    they have Buckleys and none!

  154. ozspeaksup says:

    an old book I had on wind for home power used Savonius rotors and said they were better and more stble ie no long rotors to snap and go flying off etc.
    funny how Savonius system vanished?

  155. More Soylent Green! says:

    Dave Springer says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm
    Teh windmills are better looking than oil wells that’s for sure. Teh windmills don’t smell bad like oil wells either. Developed oil fields are nas-tee.

    How much electricity does the UK get from oil? One percent, two percent? Is there oil under those estates?

  156. More Soylent Green! says:

    R. Gates says:
    November 20, 2011 at 9:51 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    November 20, 2011 at 8:23 pm
    Please name the countries that have been “subjugated” by the United States.

    My apologies re the above, I mean to say:

    Which countries have been “subjugated” by the United States for PROFIT.
    ———-
    No difference between the two. Did you think I threw out the Philippines as an example for my own health? Did you think our subjugation of the people there was for anything other than profit?Did you think our overthrow of the democratically elected ruler of Iran in 1953 by the CIA and the subjugation of the Iranian people via the U.S. Backed puppet Shah was about anything other than the vast profits to be had in the oil fields of that nation? Really Mr. Hoffer, are you that dense?

    Sure, the USA has an empire — if you redefine the word “empire” first.

    How is it certain people have some knowledge of facts but no historical context?

  157. What? “elegant” and “beautiful”? Where is your common sense, Mr. Huhne?
    No amount of elegance or beauty, in the eye of a tasteless beholder, can compensate for the ripping of a country, in my view.
    And, frankly they are ugly bird killers that wouldn’t stand on their legs without the subsidies.

  158. TheJollyGreenMan says:

    Mijnheertje Wilmar, the Dutch businessman showed yet again how low the AGW gangster mob will go to push their carbon extortion racket. Note that the palace replied that they do not comment on private discussions of the royals, but this Dutch poephol thought that by making a private conversation public it would strenghten his case.It is worth noting that events in the Netherlands are turning against these racketeers. The Dutch are cutting the wind energy subsidies next year, Geert Wilders is proposing to kick Green Peace out of Holland should he come to power, and more nuclear powerstations are going to be built. And as Simon Rosendal of Elsevier commented: – The Dutch know that it is only taxpayer’s money that turns the windmills. Fighting for a lost cause meneer Wilmar!

  159. mkelly says:

    To bad the CEO of Duke Energy doesn’t feel the same way.

  160. davidmhoffer says:

    R. Gates;
    No difference between the two. Did you think I threw out the Philippines as an example for my own health? Did you think our subjugation of the people there was for anything other than profit?Did you think our overthrow of the democratically elected ruler of Iran in 1953 by the CIA and the subjugation of the Iranian people via the U.S. Backed puppet Shah was about anything other than the vast profits to be had in the oil fields of that nation? Really Mr. Hoffer, are you that dense?>>>

    I’d only be dense if I didn’t understand what the word “subjugate” actually means. Since I do, and you clearly don’t, you may want to consider pointing that “dense” accusation a different way.

    The Phillipines is a democracy that frequently opposes the U.S at the UN. Does that sound like a subjugated nation? They have huge low cost manufacturing capacity that has displaces hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US. Does that sound like a subjugated nation? Does that sound profitable for the United States?

    As for Iran, there’s a difference between taking sides in a conflict and subjugating a nation. I’m not familiar with the history of 1953, but let’s consider that the US never occupied Iran, nor enslaved them. Was backing the Shah a bad idea? I’ve no opinion on that, but I can suggest that the US also WITHDREW their support for the Shah which resulted in the current mess in Iran. A worse idea than having thwe Shah in power by leaps and bounds.

    Iraq – now a democratic nation signing mega oil contracts with European and Russian oil companies. the US profits from this how?

    Afghanistan – Exactly what profitable resource is there to exploit in Afghanistan?

    Japan – utterly defeated in WWII, rebuilt, and now a staunch ally.

    Bosnia – US lead NATO forces prevented the slaughter of millions of ethnic Muslims. Is there oil in Bosnia? What is there to economically exploit?

    South Korea – the only thing that stands between South Korea and mass starvation imposed by an invasion from North Korea is the United States army. South Korea says thank you by depending on the U.S for defence and investing their money in car plants that displace millions of jobs in America.

    You can be critical if you want about the specifics of US foreign policy and if it was right or wrong in any given case, and I’d tend to agree with you sometimes. But the notion that the U.S. has subjugated any other nation on earth for profit, is nonsense. There was a humorous book written in the (I think) 1960′s about a tiny fictitious nation in EUrope whose economy was in the tank. The book was called “The Mouse That Roared”. It was hilarious. their strategy to fix their economy was to declare war on the United states, get defeated, and let the U.S rebuld their economy. They sent the declaration of war by regular mail and were very upset when nobody responded.

    There is no American “empire” and there never was. There are plenty of countries in which the U.S has picked sides, for better or worse. No one gets all the decisions right. But in the world’s ruch to condemn the U.S for every little mistake, something seems to have been forgotten. That is that they’ve done orders of magnitude more good in the world than bad.

    Russia had an empire that subjugated eastern europe. 8 million Ukrainians died of starvation for daring to protest the Russian jack boot. That’s what subjugation looks like.

    I am not an American. If my country ever gets invaded by another country, please, let it be the United States of America. The alternatives are not attractive.

  161. beng says:

    ****
    David Ball says:
    November 20, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    Dave Springer, after your posts on the Hansen thread, especially the one about the o-rings and the first shuttle disaster (wind shear,…. really, REALLY?),
    *****

    I don’t know the post you refer to, but I think D Springer is at least partially right. IIRC, some booster seals “broke” at ignition, but the gaps filled up w/char (the byproduct of the solid fuel burning). They perhaps would have stayed plugged, but at a certain altitude, a significant wind shear caused the shuttle structure to bend, flexing the booster joints, breaking the char-plug & allowing the escaping gas to burn thru one of the H2/O2 tank struts & quickly thereafter the tank itself.

  162. Allan MacRae says:

    Thanks to VMartin, who made a very informative post at November 20, 2011 at 5:28 pm, indicating that wind power is even more wasteful and inefficient than we already surmised.

    “Wind Power – It doesn’t just blow, it SUCKS!”

    “Solar Power – Stick it where the Sun don’t shine!”

  163. Dreadnought says:

    The Duke Of Edinburgh is a national treasure and it warms the cockles of my heart to hear that he’s given Mr Wilmar ‘both barrels’ over the wind follies he’s trying to flog, and told him “you stay away from my estate, young man” – presumably, because otherwise he really would get both barrels!

    I, for one, would pay good money to hear what the Duke Of Edinburgh has to say about our ‘Energy & Climate Change’ minister Chris Huhne, aka The Huhnatic – one of the most (politically) dangerous people in this country right now.

    Alas, we will probably never know for certain – but my guess is that the phraseology would not exactly be for ‘family reading’!

  164. Gareth Phillips says:

    David says:
    Indeed it is not. However your post is all emotion, and no science or even statistics. Statistics demonstrate wind to be more deadly then nuclear as it is practiced in the world, and coal as it is practiced in the USA. Add in the destruction of world economies due to the CAGW panic, and the wars and riots that may well result, and it is indeed not all about monetary profit and loss.

    Gareth responds:
    Thanks you David. I’m sure the parents of these children and the children who lost fathers will be re-assured by your point that this is all emotion without statistics.

    With reference to wind, I think it is obvious that wind in it’s natural state can be awesomely destructive. However I am unclear how wind generation has killed more people than coal mining? I can give you details of teh hubdreds of people who have died so far this year as a direct result of coal mining, perhaps you could let me know some details of the hundreds who have died from wind generation? ( Please, no vague correlations, just direct causation as with coal mining)

  165. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    November 21, 2011 at 12:33 am

    Willis says :

    I thought so … your kind of green hypocrisy turns my stomach. Me, I’m not the kind of man like you, the kind that will happily eat the meat while blaming the butcher for being “nas-tee” …

    Gareth responds:

    Wow Willis! You are obviously learning from John Cook on how to promote debate! The comment you responded to was just that, a comment with no hate or malice. There is no need to respond in such a way. You have so much more potential. Have a look at the article on Lord Moncktons behaviour for some guidance on how unconstructive this sort of behaviour can be.

    Adopting your style and your exclamation points for the moment, let me say wow Gareth! You must be new here!

    First, Dave Springer is a person who goes out of his way to attack me every chance he can get. He is a “nas-tee” man, and as a result everywhere he looks he thinks he sees “nas-tee” things. See David Ball’s comment above. Dave Springer has rarely made a comment containing “no hate or malice” in his life. The fact that you think he has done so in this case merely means that you are not up to speed yet … and commenting in that condition isn’t wise.

    Second, if you’d been here a while you’d know that people who make a habit of insulting me will definitely get their fingers burnt. While I’m more than happy to discuss any part of my work with serious folks, I’m not here to “promote debate” with fools, tools, children, or the congenitally unpleasant—a classification that includes Dave, possibly more than once.

    If you want to blow in his ear and rub his tummy and make nice with him, Gareth, be my guest. It’s not my style. Take care, though … he bites.

    w.

  166. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    November 21, 2011 at 12:33 am

    … With regard to subsidies, that is an economic issue. We could hope that the Conservative government will address such issues quickly, but I’m not holding my breath. You may be pleased to know however that the domestic feed in tariff for energy generated from the home has been stopped. Lets hope that jet fuel is now taxed to show that we are all in this together and that it’s not just the little man who has to pay more every time there is an economic initiative.

    Sure, Gareth, let’s tax jet fuel. Heck, lets tax every single kind of energy to “show that we are all in this together”. Gosh, let’s make it a punitive tax, we could stop or at least slow down all that un-necessary economic development …

    I must admit, Gareth, up to that point you sounded like you had a point.

    But then, just to satisfy your whims, you want to lash out and tax someone … why is that always the answer from people like yourself? Write on the blackboard a hundred times, TAXING ENERGY SLOWS DEVELOPMENT AND HITS THE POOR HARDEST. Then go read my essay on taxing energy and how it is so destructive.

    Then come back and we can talk about your brilliant energy tax plan for impoverishing the poor people of the planet …

    w.

  167. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    November 21, 2011 at 12:44 am

    Living in Wales I can assure everyone that I have never heard of a bunch of wind turbines sliding down a hill into a school and killing hundreds of children. Or as a health professional I have never seen hundreds of thousands on workers slowly gasping their lives away because of wind powered dust. Or as someone who loves the Welsh countryside I really can’t agree that the hundreds of coal tips dumped in lovely countryside were not more intrusive and damaging than turbines. Sometimes, it’s not all about profit and loss.

    Gosh, Gareth, you mean that there are worse things than wind turbines? I am shocked to hear that. Heck, if I’d known that I’d never have written this essay … not.

    Your claims are as stupid as me saying “I’ve never seen a coal plant that killed golden eagles.” My statement, like yours, is true but not very meaningful. Why? Because I’m measuring different things. Coal plants don’t kill eagles, and wind towers don’t slide downhill and kill people … so?

    The real underlying problem is that your lovely oh-so-green bird shredders lose money. They don’t make money. They lose money. Which means that you want the rest of the people to subsidize your green fantasy … no surprise there, a free ride seems to be high on many AGW supporters list.

    But your assumed moral superiority, your dreamily reminiscing about your love for the Welsh countryside while at the same time asking others to fund your fantasy green lifestyle, grates badly on my ear.

    w.

  168. TheJollyGreenMan says:

    I read somewhere that there is ROADKILL cookbook for sale in America.

    When are we going to see the BIRDKILL cookbook?

  169. oldseadog says:

    Auto,
    They are consulting the seamen about tidal energy machines – I sit on a committee that is consulted continuously about them; and surprisingly the developers seem to be listening to us.

  170. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Kum Dollison says:
    November 21, 2011 at 3:14 am

    For what it’s worth, Willis, I live in Mississippi. Not Iowa. Not a very scientific assumption on your part.

    You can get mad at me all you want, Bubba; but, I didn’t cause the 20th Century to leave you. It was just time; and it left. It’s the 21st Century, now, and China is paying $126.00/Tonne for coal, and importing 5 million barrels/day of oil, and diesel.

    Liquified Natural Gas is selling for $13.50 per thousand cuft in Asia, and we’re building LNG Export Facilities as quickly as it can be done. China is adding, by far, more Wind Power than any other country on Earth. You might want to ask yourself, “Why?”

    We get 40% of Our coal from the Powder River Basin, and most of the current mines operating there will be “played out” in 20 yrs. Maybe you’d care to ask, “what/where next?” The times they are a’changin’, son; time to move on.

    I haven’t a clue what your point is there, Kum. Maybe you’d care to ask yourself if requesting people to answer your vague semi-rhetorical questions goes anywhere … because it sure doesn’t for me. It seems you think you know why the Chinese are doing what they are doing. Please enlighten us, because asking me your stupid questions won’t get an answer. I don’t even know what question you are asking.

    In particular, when you start out a rant like that one, you need to cite your claims. Otherwise, folks out here don’t know where you are getting what you claim are facts, or what is behind your claims.

    For example, regarding coal there is what’s called the “R/P ratio”. This is the ratio of reserves of coal to production. It measures how many years of coal remain at the current rate of production. The BP Statistical Review cited above gives the R/P ratio for the US as 240 … that is to say, the US has enough reserves to last 240 years at the current rate of production. Not just 20 years in Powder River as you’d like us to believe.

    So when you start in with your “why/where” about Powder River, what in the world are you on about? The US has heaps of coal. So it’s clear you’ve misunderstood something very basic about US coal … but because you haven’t cited your claims, I don’t know where it is you went of the rails.

    w.

    PS— After writing the above, I just went to look at Powder River coal reserves. That citation says (emphasis mine):

    At current production rates of roughly 450 million tons per year, Powder River Basin reserves would support over 400 years of continuous coal production. Even if production doubled, there would be enough reserves to last over 200 years. As mining technology and extraction strategies continue to advance, another 300 billion tons of PRB reserves could be produced that would extend the production horizon to the distant future.

    In other words, your claim about the Powder River Basin reserves running out in 20 years is a pathetic joke. There is 400 years of production in reserves there, plus another 300 billions tonnes left over. At current rates of production, that’s a thousand years of coal … and you claim 20 years???

    You see why I ask you to cite your nonsense? 20 years reserves left at Powder River, my okole.

  171. JJThoms says:

    Willis
    The real underlying problem is that your lovely oh-so-green bird shredders lose money. They don’t make money. They lose money. Which means that you want the rest of the people to subsidize your green fantasy … no surprise there, a free ride seems to be high on many AGW supporters list
    =========================
    I would be interested to see the evidence for loss of money over a projected 20 year life.

    As far as I know repayment is of the order of 3-4 years

  172. Anthony Watts says:

    Jimmy Haigh says:
    November 20, 2011 at 3:07 pm (Edit)

    “Chris B says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm
    ‘Isn’t that photo dramatically altered with Photoshop?”

    They’ve Photoshopped out all the dead birds and replaced them with live sheep.

    Sheep don’t fly.. as much as plummet.

    No story showing sheep is complete without this:

  173. diogenes says:

    JJ Thoms…where do you live? The gearboxes fail after about 5 years on AVERAGE. The turbines in marine environments will never last so long. They only make money because they are paid even when they do not produce any electricity, thanks to the tariffs agreed by the politicos.

  174. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Blade says:
    November 21, 2011 at 5:48 am

    Jimmy Haigh [November 20, 2011 at 3:07 pm] says:

    “They’ve Photoshopped out all the dead birds and replaced them with live sheep.”

    ROTFLMAO Thread Winner!

    Willis, tell him what he’s won …

    Thanks to everyone who played, Blade. Our champion, Jimmy Haigh, has won a special edition of the brand new Chevy Volt with its own windmill mounted on top! It’s the car of the future! He can drive it whenever the wind is blowing, and when the wind is calm, he can still charge up the car’s batteries merely by driving around the block to create a little headwind!

    w.

  175. EW says:

    O H Dahlsveen says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:37 pm
    Willis – good article, but just out of interest, can you tell me how the electricity is conducted away from these, or any other, wind-turbines?
    Of course, through underground cables.
    But wait – in Germany the network companies are starting to complain. They have to connect every and all windmills (by law) to the grid and because the offshore farms are quite far off shore, it is also quite expensive.
    And as an added bonus – Germany’s terrestrial grid isn’t in good shape and has not the capacity to transfer the wind power from North, where it’s generated, to South, where it’s used. So they just divert it without warning over Poland or Czech Republic, which have for historical reasons more capacity.
    The result is, that the putative overload blackout would happen in Poland or Czechia, not in Germany. And due to EU regulations, none of these countries can shut the access to their electrical grid…

  176. Willis Eschenbach says:

    JJThoms says:
    November 21, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Willis

    The real underlying problem is that your lovely oh-so-green bird shredders lose money. They don’t make money. They lose money. Which means that you want the rest of the people to subsidize your green fantasy … no surprise there, a free ride seems to be high on many AGW supporters list
    =========================

    I would be interested to see the evidence for loss of money over a projected 20 year life.

    As far as I know repayment is of the order of 3-4 years

    And I would be interested to see a windmill with no subsidies. You have one we could discuss?

    In any case, the NREL says the average windpower price in the US in 2006 was about 35¢ per kWh, with a range from about 22¢ to about 50¢ per kWh. So your repayment times are based on hugely overblown electricity sales prices.

    And since you can produce and sell gas-powered electricity for about 5¢ per kWh, these windmills lose money, not just over twenty years, but from year one. Sure, with the subsidy they don’t lose money. And at thirty-five or fifty cents per kWh your repayment figures might possibly be correct (even then they seem short).

    But only fools and greenies buy subsidized power at seven times the market value and then make your claim that somehow the windmill is not losing money. Why do you think all the wind power folks are up in arms about the possible loss of their subsidy gravy train?

    w.

  177. Gareth Phillips says:

    Willis says:
    Your claims are as stupid as me saying “I’ve never seen a coal plant that killed golden eagles.” My statement, like yours, is true but not very meaningful. Why? Because I’m measuring different things. Coal plants don’t kill eagles, and wind towers don’t slide downhill and kill people … so?

    The real underlying problem is that your lovely oh-so-green bird shredders lose money. They don’t make money. They lose money. Which means that you want the rest of the people to subsidize your green fantasy … no surprise there, a free ride seems to be high on many AGW supporters list.

    But your assumed moral superiority, your dreamily reminiscing about your love for the Welsh countryside while at the same time asking others to fund your fantasy green lifestyle, grates badly on my ear.

    Garethman says:
    Willis, stop acting like a moron who has difficulty understanding things are not always about money. I know you do understand, I know this because when you are cornered you hurl insults. You don’t have to act like this. Hopefully you will also that understand asking you to stop acting like a moron is in the same methodology you use to debate. Lets try and be a bit more polite eh?
    What I am trying to say is that I’m aware that Wind turbines are not economic. That is recognised. But trust me on this, I live near hundreds of them and would rather live next door to them than next to coal tips, refineries, and have to deal with to many people gasping their lives away. I grew up in a mining village and I know the effects on the community. Dismissing these issues as a mere fantasising about our countryside is not just wrong it is crass and obnoxious.
    A complex idea for you I know, and one that will make you very angry, but tough.
    Whining about how much it costs to keep our children safe or maintain community health does not wash in my books. I like the idea of a healthy community, I hate the idea of people suffering because coal is the cheapest option. I like the NHS, I like the fact that the USA is slowly waking up to the idea that everyone has a right to access health care free at the point of delivery. It may be expensive, but it’s a much wider issue than just money. Money may be the final arbiter for you, but many feel differently. Now grow up and live with that and stop throwing your dummy out of the pram every time someone challenges your posting.
    I’m not asking anyone to subsidise my beliefs. It is you continually complains about having to spend anything on issues where you do not directly benefit. So read a Christmas carol, learn that it’s not all about money and stop being the miserable red neck skinflint you strive to be and try and think a bit more on the wider issues.
    Moderator, I know you may wish to moderate this post and I have no issues with that. But if that is your decision I think you really need to rein in some of Willis’ increasingly ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with him. It seriously undermines this site and makes our job of persuading others about the defects in climate change science that much harder.

  178. Willis Eschenbach says:

    For those who are interested in the true cost of wind power, there’s a good analysis of the issues here. It’s not an easy task.

    w.

  179. An Inquirer says:

    Dave Springer says @ November 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm: “eh windmills are better looking than oil wells that’s for sure. Teh windmills don’t smell bad like oil wells either. Developed oil fields are nas-tee.”
    I am sure that one can find some ugly developed oil fields, but ones with which I am currently familiar are ones on the prairie. Not ugly at all . . . Unobtrusive . . . with no impact on my life. Meanwhile, I have never seen an oilfield as ugly as the windfarms on Altamont Pass. Although quite not as ugly, the windfarms that surround my home farm do interfere with my life. The whooshing noise I have gotten used to . . . however, we have had an explosion in mosquitoes since the windmills have been installed. Coincidence? Perhaps one wish so, but with the windmill decimation of the bat population, it does stand to reason that mosquitoes would expand in numbers.

  180. Vince Causey says:

    Gareth Phillips,
    “I hate the idea of people suffering because coal is the cheapest option.”

    And you went on to describe how happy you are that coal is no longer mined in Wales. You may be happy about that, but I remember in the early eighties, Welsh mining villages fought a brutal battle against the Thatcher government. You see, they wanted to keep their mines open. I am not sure they would have appreciated someone like you lecturing them on the evils of coal.

    Then you write: “I’m not asking anyone to subsidise my beliefs.”

    Did that line slip out by mistake? You have spent an entire post talking up your belief in windfarms and then say you’re not asking anyone to subsidise your beliefs. Are you in fact aware that windfarms are heavily subsidised?

  181. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    November 21, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Willis says:

    Your claims are as stupid as me saying “I’ve never seen a coal plant that killed golden eagles.” My statement, like yours, is true but not very meaningful. Why? Because I’m measuring different things. Coal plants don’t kill eagles, and wind towers don’t slide downhill and kill people … so?

    The real underlying problem is that your lovely oh-so-green bird shredders lose money. They don’t make money. They lose money. Which means that you want the rest of the people to subsidize your green fantasy … no surprise there, a free ride seems to be high on many AGW supporters list.

    But your assumed moral superiority, your dreamily reminiscing about your love for the Welsh countryside while at the same time asking others to fund your fantasy green lifestyle, grates badly on my ear.

    Garethman says:
    Willis, stop acting like a moron who has difficulty understanding things are not always about money. I know you do understand, I know this because when you are cornered you hurl insults. You don’t have to act like this. Hopefully you will also that understand asking you to stop acting like a moron is in the same methodology you use to debate. Lets try and be a bit more polite eh?

    If (as it certainly appears) you want other people to pay for your electricity, Gareth, I’ll call you a parasite. I’m sorry, but there’s no polite name for that. Would you prefer being called a leech?

    What I am trying to say is that I’m aware that Wind turbines are not economic. That is recognised. But trust me on this, I live near hundreds of them and would rather live next door to them than next to coal tips, refineries, and have to deal with to many people gasping their lives away. I grew up in a mining village and I know the effects on the community. Dismissing these issues as a mere fantasising about our countryside is not just wrong it is crass and obnoxious.
    A complex idea for you I know, and one that will make you very angry, but tough.

    a) Where did I dismiss the known problems with coal mining? I know they are real, been there, seen that.
    b) Why on earth would the known problems with coal mining make me angry? You’re off in some weird fantasy about me, my friend. Every technology has problems. Different problems.
    c) Upon re-reading, it may be that you think that calling me “crass and obnoxious” will make me very angry. Nice try, I’ve been insulted by experts.
    cd

    Now grow up and live with that and stop throwing your dummy out of the pram every time someone challenges your posting.

    Ooooh, you’re so cute when you’re angry, Gareth. It’s so becoming on you.

    I’m not asking anyone to subsidise my beliefs.

    Subsidize your beliefs? I didn’t say you were asking people to subsidize your beliefs, Gareth. You are asking others to subsidize your electricity, please try to keep up here.

    It is you continually complains about having to spend anything on issues where you do not directly benefit. So read a Christmas carol, learn that it’s not all about money and stop being the miserable red neck skinflint you strive to be and try and think a bit more on the wider issues.

    Nonsense. I pay my taxes just like the next man, and in fact I think that unfortunately we’ll need to raise taxes to get out of the hole we’re in. Most of those taxes don’t go to me, yet I approve of them. You have some bizarre idea of who I am. I’m not that person.

    I just don’t like propping up uneconomic feel-good fantasies. So sue me.

    Moderator, I know you may wish to moderate this post and I have no issues with that. But if that is your decision I think you really need to rein in some of Willis’ increasingly ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with him. It seriously undermines this site and makes our job of persuading others about the defects in climate change science that much harder.

    Moderate you or me? Hey, we’re just discussing windmills and coal, chill out. As to whether my honesty and forthright manner “seriously undermines this site”, it is obvious the readers don’t think so, they seem to like the fact that I tell the truth as best I know it. Most of them just grab a beer and some popcorn and watch the show.

    Finally, the choice is not between wind and coal in any case. Thats a red herring, a totally bogus dilemma that you bring up so you can exaggerate the dire consequences of not having windmills. Wind and coal is not the choice at all.

    The choice is between wind and natural gas, which doesn’t have a single one of the disadvantages you listed so passionately … as I said, please do try to keep up here. As someone mentioned, this is the 21st century, natural gas is the fuel of the future.

    w.

  182. jjthom says:

    diogenes says: November 21, 2011 at 10:18 am
    JJ Thoms…where do you live? The gearboxes fail after about 5 years on AVERAGE. The turbines in marine environments will never last so long.

    Show me the evidence for that please, i am interested.

    However you may be interested in these from my post above:

    ENERCON WECs produce clean energy without neodymium
    29.04. 2011
    ENERCON wind energy converters (WECs) generate electricity in an environmentally friendly way without the use of the controversial element, neodymium. The gearless WEC design on which all WEC types – from the E-33/330 kW to the E-126/7.5 MW – are based includes a separately excited annular generator.
    http://tinyurl.com/6lkadj7

    Neodymium free, gearbox free, and because of electronic invertor will provide “instant” grid frequency lock and will provide a better support to an overloaded grid than most conventional power stations.

  183. Gareth Phillips says:

    Willis, Wind power can never compete with oil and gas. Read my posts, I have never said that it could. I have also never asked for someone to subsidise my electricity or any other power.. You will be glad to hear in fact I am mostly self sufficient in most of our energy production However just about anything is more efficient economically than wind power, I think we all agree on that. I don’t think wind power is the answer by any means, as someone once said here , the answer is all of them, all of the resources. But each power source has it’s advantages and disadvantages. If you rate everything on it’s value for money you can quickly miss the worth of everything. I also love my small nation so will excuse my enjoying it being largely unspoiled and not dismiss it at some odd moral superiority and dreamy reminiscence.
    You have the right to measure everything in financial terms. I also have the right to say it’s not always that simple. Thats why as a left wing euro I read and contribute to this site and dislike sites such as John Cooks fiasco even though there is a lot of dodgy right wing characters hanging out here. I think it’s important to read and consider all aspects of the debate. But debate should be allowed, and my argument with you is that you seem to be acting more and more like John Cook in that you attack and insult posters who post aspects of a debate you don’t like. That is not healthy, it may be a good laugh, but it gets us nowhere. Have a look at the responses you have made on this page, and imagine them being aimed by John Cook at Anthony. Would they still be ok? or would John Cook just be acting in a forthright and honest manner? Would he be re-enforcing how great his site is? If not, why is such behaviour ok here?
    If you think that your debating style is still ok I suspect we will just end up hurling insults at each other and any informed debate will be lost, much to the joy of the catastrophists and deceivers.

  184. Ken Stewart says:

    Excuse my lateness… I agree with HRH, but find it amusing that he opposes subsidising windfarms- then I guess the Royal Family (The Firm) isn’t foreign owned, so I guess the subsidies they receive for their lifestyle stay in Britain. Unlike my wife, I’m not a fan of the Royals.

  185. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    November 21, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    Willis, Wind power can never compete with oil and gas. Read my posts, I have never said that it could. I have also never asked for someone to subsidise my electricity or any other power.. You will be glad to hear in fact I am mostly self sufficient in most of our energy production However just about anything is more efficient economically than wind power, I think we all agree on that. I don’t think wind power is the answer by any means, as someone once said here , the answer is all of them, all of the resources. But each power source has it’s advantages and disadvantages. If you rate everything on it’s value for money you can quickly miss the worth of everything. I also love my small nation so will excuse my enjoying it being largely unspoiled and not dismiss it at some odd moral superiority and dreamy reminiscence.

    I though you were in favor of windmills. Now you’re talking like you’re opposed to windmills. I’m confused. Which one is it?

    You have the right to measure everything in financial terms.

    I don’t do that. I told you that already. Your response is to repeat the canard, while scolding me for my evil ways. Nice.

    I also have the right to say it’s not always that simple. Thats why as a left wing euro I read and contribute to this site and dislike sites such as John Cooks fiasco even though there is a lot of dodgy right wing characters hanging out here. I think it’s important to read and consider all aspects of the debate. But debate should be allowed, and my argument with you is that you seem to be acting more and more like John Cook in that you attack and insult posters who post aspects of a debate you don’t like.

    We got into this because of my response to Dave Springer, Gareth. You thought I was out of line. I pointed out that mine was a measured response to the fact that he goes out of his way to try to damage every thread he posts in. You still haven’t dealt with the concept that I’m not responding to people posting “aspects of a debate I don’t like”. I’m responding to Dave Springer, known mischief-maker, and you were foolish enough of a newbie to leap to his defense.

    That is not healthy, it may be a good laugh, but it gets us nowhere. Have a look at the responses you have made on this page, and imagine them being aimed by John Cook at Anthony. Would they still be ok? or would John Cook just be acting in a forthright and honest manner? Would he be re-enforcing how great his site is? If not, why is such behaviour ok here?

    If either Anthony or I were stupid enough to enter a thread, not continue a discussion but enter a thread by jumping into the middle of a dispute between John Cook and a known troll, and took the side of the troll, it would not only be OK, it would be richly deserved if John Cook said any of that to us. But neither of Anthony nor I is that dumb. READ YOUR FIRST POST, Gareth. You jumped in because I spanked a troll, and wanted to tell me how wrong I was. So I spanked you as well. Don’t like it? Don’t enter a thread like that.

    If you think that your debating style is still ok I suspect we will just end up hurling insults at each other and any informed debate will be lost, much to the joy of the catastrophists and deceivers.

    Debating style? This is not about debating the issues. Don’t flatter yourself that your arguments are the reason I have been less than encouraging to you.

    It’s the general unpleasantness of the way that you entered the thread that has me on your case. Your arguments to date are too vague to elicit any kind of response.

    w.

  186. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Gareth, as I said above, I’m not clear at this juncture what your points are. Let me suggest that you might wish to present a précis of them in some ordered fashion, with cites where appropriate. That would help re-focus the discussion.

    Also, if you think I’m wrong about something, QUOTE MY WORDS. That helps avoid misunderstanding on both sides. I’ve been wrong before and I will be again. But you have to quote what I said so we can all understand your points.

    w.

  187. diogenes says:

    is this reference sufficienbt, JJThom – should you you not be showing me evidence of reliability in maritime conditions? Damnb…I forgot, you huave no evidence whatsoever
    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/print/article/2011/11/wind-turbine-gearbox-study-raises-reliability-hopes

  188. Chris B says:

    Anthony Watts says:
    November 21, 2011 at 10:17 am
    Jimmy Haigh says:
    November 20, 2011 at 3:07 pm (Edit)

    “Chris B says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm
    ‘Isn’t that photo dramatically altered with Photoshop?”

    They’ve Photoshopped out all the dead birds and replaced them with live sheep.
    Sheep don’t fly.. as much as plummet.

    No story showing sheep is complete without this:
    ___________________________________

    Thanks, I needed that. And this……

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZjTQjIxhuM&feature=fvsr

  189. jjthom says:

    Willis your NREL report is 5 years old Costs Change!
    Here’s a recent FOI

    From a FOI request real data for a 1MW machine
    http://blog.silverford.com/2011/02/balloo-enercon-wind-turbine-bangor-northern-ireland-stats-figures-and-price/
    £889,650 turbine cost
    £434,583 planning and consultancy
    maintenance cost €0.0055 per kilowatt hour – 12 year guarantee
    As reported to Council in December 2009 a pay-back period of approximately 7-8 years has been calculated. This is based on a full capital cost of £890,000 and a basic provision of £30,000 to cover routine expenditure

    Additional cost of backup generation
    http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19507.htm

    101. The first cost imposed by intermittency is that more plant has to be held in reserve to cope with short-term fluctuations in output. At present, National Grid, which operates the electricity system,[34] keeps a number of power stations running at less than their full capacity, providing about 1 GW of spinning reserve—that is capacity which can automatically respond to any shortfall in generation within seconds (Q 293).[35] The company also contracts with other stations to start generation quickly and has arrangements with industrial consumers to reduce their demand at short notice, in order to restore the level of spinning reserves as soon as possible after they are used. The company holds about 2.5 GW of this standing reserve (Q 293); 70% of this comes from generation, and 30% from industrial consumers (p 144).

    102. As the amount of wind generation rises, the potential short-term change in wind output will also increase, and National Grid will have to hold more reserve to cope with this increase. The company told us that if renewables provided 40% of electricity generation—the share the company believes would be needed to meet the EU’s 2020 energy target—its total short-term reserve requirements would jump to between 7 and 10 GW. Most of this would be standing rather than spinning reserves. This would add £500 million to £1 billion to the annual cost of these reserves—known as balancing costs—which are now around £300 million a year (Q 293). This is equivalent to around 0.3 to 0.7 pence per kWh of renewable output.

    103. Estimates of balancing costs vary widely. The government has commissioned research from the consultancy SKM,[36] which estimated that if renewables provided 34% of electricity by 2020, with 27.1% from wind power, the extra cost of short-term balancing would be about 1.4 p/kWh of wind output[37] (Q 481). This equates to a total cost of £1.4 billion, well above that assumed by National Grid. Several pieces of evidence cited a 2006 report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC),[38] which had estimated the balancing costs with up to 20% of intermittent renewable output in Great Britain at 0.2-0.3 pence per kWh. Although the share of renewables in the SKM study was less than double that of UKERC, the balancing costs per unit were more than five times higher. In part, this may reflect higher fuel costs since the studies surveyed by UKERC were performed; but it will also reflect the greater challenges of dealing with larger shares of intermittent renewable generation.

    My simple sums:
    build £889,650.00 install
    planning etc £434,583.00 install

    maintenance 0.0055 per kWh
    maintenance/year for delivered 280kWh £562.49 per year
    routine expenses £30,000.00 per year
    rating 1000 kwh
    load factor 28%
    deliverd power 280 kwh

    Balancing Cost £0.014 per kWh
    Short term Reserve £0.007 per kWh

    total install cost= £1,324,233.00
    install cost/delivered kWh £4,729.40
    conventional backup costs/year £51,544.08 per 280 kWh/year
    running cost/year £82,106.57 per 280 kWh/year

    over n years 10
    total install over 10 yrs £1,324,233.00
    running cost over 10 yrs £821,065.65
    total cost over 10 yrs £2,145,298.65

    power generated over 10 yrs 24544800 kWh

    cost per kwh over 10 yrs £0.09 per kWh

    Which is well below end consumer price

    life cycle analysis:
    http://www.vestas.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fEN%2fSustainability%2fLCA%2fLCA_V112_Study_Report_2011.pdf

    I would still be interested in a lik proving modern costs make wind a dead loss.

  190. Kum Dollison says:

    No Wilis, it’s just that your reading skills are as bad as your temper, and your “science.”

    Anyone can make up numbers about “reserves.” USGS just lowered their reserve estimate for NPR- Alaska by 90%.

    I Stated: “Most of the Current Mines Operating There” will be played out in 20yrs. That is a fact.

    There is more Coal, Much Deeper Underground. It can be, and, probably, will be recovered, but at much greater expense.

  191. davidmhoffer says:

    jjthom;
    I would still be interested in a lik proving modern costs make wind a dead loss.>>>

    Willis is the whiz kid with the math, but at the risk of getting between you two, here’s a few thoughtsd you might want to consider:

    Statement:
    National Grid, which operates the electricity system,[34] keeps a number of power stations running at less than their full capacity, providing about 1 GW of spinning reserve—that is capacity which can automatically respond to any shortfall in generation within seconds>>>

    Response:
    Seconds is good enough to respond to a brown out situation which evolves slowly. In power grid terms, that’s seconds. Anything that happens faster than the grid can respond (in this case seconds) has the potential to take down the entire grid.

    Statement:
    As the amount of wind generation rises, the potential short-term change in wind output will also increase, and National Grid will have to hold more reserve to cope with this increase.>>>

    Response:
    True. In spades. As the potential short term change increases, the amount of “spinning” reserve required increases faster. The larger a swing in output you have to compensate for, the faster you have to respond, and the larger the percentage of the swing you have to have “instantly” available. Thus the costs of spinning reserve rise faster than the total amount of “average” wind power generated. The alternative is to risk taking the whole grid down.

    Statement:
    Most of this would be standing rather than spinning reserves.>>>

    Response:
    See above. If most of the reserve is standing rather than spinning, then total outages are almost a certainty. In the case of large grids that are interconnected with other grids, brown outs and complete outages not only take your grid down, they have the potential to take other grids down as well. The defense that connected grids use to prevent themsleves from going down with you is to trip their safety systems and disconnect. Ever try and connect two major power grids together? It isn’t nearly as simple as just flipping a switch.

    Further, if you do tap into standing power, keep in mind that the average contract rate has riders on it. Take X amount of power and the bill is Y. But no one ever takes X as a steady state, particularly if it is wind that you are trying to backfill because there IS no steady state. Power contracts have increased rates for peak load. So, if you momentarily need 2X to backfill your wind power, the bill will probably be more like 5Y.

    Statement:
    cost per kwh over 10 yrs £0.09 per kWh
    Which is well below end consumer price>>>

    Response:
    Here lies the greatest fallacy in al the numbers you present. The question is not in regard to the production cost of wind being higher or lower than the consumer price. The question is in regard to the most economical way to provide the power in the first place. If wind costs 9 cents and coal costs 5 cents, then the price to the consumer could obviously go below 9 cents with coal, but not with wind. In order for an economy to be competitive, it must have competitive infrastructure costs. The lower the better. Comparing to the current consumer price for power tells you nothing. The question is what could it be, and is wind the higher number? Or the lower number?

    One doesn’t need detailed (and frequently politically motivated) government studies to prove what is cost effective and what isn’t though. All one needs to do is put out a contract for the supply of electricity. If wind is cost effective, the suppliers will use wind. If something else is more cost effective, they will use something else. The fact of the matter is there are no wind farms that are constructed without government incentives. In other words, if those greedy capitalist pigs can’t figure out how to make money on them without government help, than one can only draw one conclusion.

    they are a dead loss.

  192. Willis Eschenbach says:

    jjthom says:
    November 21, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    Willis your NREL report is 5 years old Costs Change!
    Here’s a recent FOI

    cost per kwh over 10 yrs £0.09 per kWh

    Which is well below end consumer price

    I would still be interested in a link proving modern costs make wind a dead loss.

    Nine British pence is about US 15¢ per kWh. Don’t know about where you are, but if that is “below end consumer price” I suspect that the local prices have been hijacked by “renewable energy standards”.

    In any case, it’s not below my end consumer price. I’m paying California prices here, which are 12¢ per kWh. In Idaho and Utah and other states where they don’t have the California renewable stupidity distorting the retail price, they pay 6¢ to 8¢ per kilowatt-hour.

    You say that you “interested in a link proving modern costs make wind a dead loss”? Your own link proves it quite handily. The power from your mill is about 8¢ per kWh above the price from a modern gas plant. That’s a dead loss.

    Why do you think that windmills only exist where there are subsidies, jjthom? It’s not a coincidence.

    w.

  193. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Kum Dollison says:
    November 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    No Wilis, it’s just that your reading skills are as bad as your temper, and your “science.”

    Anyone can make up numbers about “reserves.” USGS just lowered their reserve estimate for NPR- Alaska by 90%.

    I Stated: “Most of the Current Mines Operating There” will be played out in 20yrs. That is a fact.

    There is more Coal, Much Deeper Underground. It can be, and, probably, will be recovered, but at much greater expense.

    Thanks, Kum. Let me review the bidding. This all began with your statement:

    We get 40% of Our coal from the Powder River Basin, and most of the current mines operating there will be “played out” in 20 yrs. Maybe you’d care to ask, “what/where next?” The times they are a’changin’, son; time to move on.

    OK, big scare there. Your claim is that the Powder River Basin, our major source, is nearly played out of coal, and we should ask “what/where next?”, because the times they are a’changin’.

    So I thought, I wonder what the true situation is? Because when someone tries to scare me with “we’re running out of X”, it usually turns out not to be the case. I knew nothing about the Powder River Basin except I vaguely knew there was coal there.

    And in fact, I found and previously cited a document containing the following surprising statement (emphasis mine):

    The Powder River Basin (PRB) in eastern Wyoming and Montana contains the largest source of low-cost, concentrated energy on the planet. According to a recent assessment by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the PRB has over 200 billion short tons of coal, which is equivalent to over 3,616 quadrillion British Thermal Units (quads). The next largest energy reserve, the North Dome — South Pars natural gas field in the Middle East, is a distant second at 1,228 quads. Ghawar, the world’s largest oil field in Saudi Arabia has 418 quads in reserve.

    To my amazement, I find out you’re not talking about some small deposit that will play out in 20 years. We are discussing the biggest store of “low-cost concentrated energy” on the entire planet! It’s eight times the energy in the Saudi Ghawar oil field. I also find out that at the current rate of extraction there’s 400 years worth of reserves! In short, I find out that your claim is ridiculously far from the truth. The truth is the PRB deposit is huge, and it’s not even remotely near running out, not in twenty years, and not in a hundred years.

    So in answer to your question, after 20 years, “what/where next?”, the answer is, the Powder River Basin. And that will be the answer for a long, long time.

    In response to my posting the facts in the case, Kum, you have merely restated your claims and further stated without evidence that the reserve figures are made up.

    Made up? The IEA is hallucinating the largest energy store on the planet? Not likely. I provided a citation to a careful analysis of the reserves. Yes, the EIA could be wrong, but at present that’s all the evidence we have on the table. A hand-wave claim that the reserve estimates are “made up” is meaningless unless you can establish that, and you made no attempt to do so.

    Finally, even if the EIA estimates are twice the reality, the PRB is still the largest fossil energy store in the world.

    In response, you have said that your statement “is a fact.” Perhaps so … but generally if a man has evidence to establish something is a fact, he doesn’t waste time saying “It’s a fact!”. He just produces the evidence.

    But in any case, great. If it’s a fact, provide the supporting evidence that the PRB mines are about to run out, and that as a result in 20 years we’re going to have to ask “what/where next” is our coal supply going to come from.

    w.

  194. Gareth Phillips says:

    Willis, here are my points,

    1) No power source is all good or all bad. Each have pros and cons. Your post did not mention that. I tried to contribute to the debate by making this suggestion.
    2) I responded initially to your attitude to another poster in a reasonable manner. If we all showed solidarity when someone is cyberbullying such damaging behaviour could be reduced or stopped. Peer pressure works as well, if not better than moderation. You will note I also occasionally support you if I think you are being treated unfairly.
    3) You only responded anger and insults in response to my post, not my comment on your posts to someone else. A short review of the thread demonstrates that clearly.
    4) You appear to be a person who thrives on high expressed emotion and provoke that response in individuals. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are more interested in heated arguments than the subject of climate change. It may be worth everyone bearing that in mind.
    5) You are beginning to cultivate a reputation as a bad tempered old git who shouts down anyone who remotely disagrees with your fixed viewpoint. That in a way is unfair, you are not quite that bad yet, but I suspect you are rapidly heading that way
    6) Lastly, if you want people to read your posts and quote you, give the same courtesy to others and don’t jump to conclusions. Try and understand the point they are trying to make before descending on them like a pile of bricks while hurling abuse in every direction.

    Now, maybe you would like to respond to the idea that is outlined in point one without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

  195. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    November 22, 2011 at 1:04 am

    Willis, here are my points,

    1) No power source is all good or all bad. Each have pros and cons. Your post did not mention that. I tried to contribute to the debate by making this suggestion.
    2) I responded initially to your attitude to another poster in a reasonable manner. If we all showed solidarity when someone is cyberbullying such damaging behaviour could be reduced or stopped. Peer pressure works as well, if not better than moderation. You will note I also occasionally support you if I think you are being treated unfairly.

    Now, maybe you would like to respond to the idea that is outlined in point one without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

    I ask you to restate your points about the subject under discussion. You give me one point about the subject and six points about why I’m a jerk … and you wonder why you don’t get a good reception from me?

    Anyhow, you ask for my response to point one, your profound and philosophical statements that “No power source is all good or all bad. Each have pros and cons.” Here’s my response.

    That is the most vapid and meaningless thing anyone has said around here for a long time.

    Apparently you are under some illusion that I and perhaps others here were unaware that “no power source is all good or all bad”. Let me hasten to assure you that is not the case. We do know that each power source has pros and cons. What you have said is bland, content-less, and un-falsifiable. In other words, useless.

    Regarding the rest of your points. You jumped into a post to support a known troll and mischief-maker. That was quite foolish. Now you claim you were just trying to stop me from “cyberbullying” Dave Springer … man, I ’bout fell out of my chair laughing at that one. Cyberbullying? Dave Springer? Not even theoretically possible, you couldn’t cyberbully Dave with a cybersledgehammer and two cyberaccomplices, it’s one of his endearing qualities. I don’t know what kind of politically correct nonsense you’ve been exposed to if you think people are getting “cyberbullied” around here.

    But in any case, Gareth, despite your delusions of grandeur you are not the self-appointed cyberpolice, given the authority to arrest cyberbullies in their tracks. You are simply an intrusive cyberjerk inserting your nose into other people’s discussions, and then bitching and complaining when someone punches it.

    So you come in, take sides in a dispute about which you know nothing, accuse me of being a cyberbully, and now you want to lecture me on proper behavior? Your effrontery knows no bounds.

    Having said that, Gareth, I truly thank you for your concern. I know that as long as you are clutching your pearls and whimpering about the damage I’m doing to my reputation, I must be doing something right. I seem to be driving you to total distraction, at any rate. With any luck, you’ll go cyberbully someone else and leave us all in peace to discuss the science.

    w.

    PS—Am I a “bad tempered old git”? When confronted by fools like yourself, most assuredly. When people come in and start off by telling me how I’m acting wrong and saying I should cease my cyberbullying, I certainly might be bad tempered. Hey, if I walked into your living room and started the conversation by telling you you’re all wrong and to stop doing what you are doing, you’d be bad tempered too.

    It’s called “karma”, Gareth. You come in, and without saying hello or howsyerfather, you start off by trying to bust my differential for my imagined misdeeds, and guess what happens?

    When people want to discuss the science, on the other hand, we talk it over from all sides and have a great time. You should give it a shot. So let’s do this one more time.

    Put together a précis of your scientific points, with supporting citations, to show where you think I’m wrong, or to lay out your ideas of what’s right. Then we can discuss the scientific ideas like gentlemen.

  196. Kum Dollison says:

    No, Willis, you are still Misrepresenting what I said. I said, “The Mines Currently Operating, will be played out in 20 years. The fact that there is a lot of coal way down deep below those mines is interesting, and, possibly, important, but is Not a factor in the depletion of the Mines I Referenced.

  197. JJThoms says:

    “Nine British pence is about US 15¢ per kWh. Don’t know about where you are, but if that is “below end consumer price” I suspect that the local prices have been hijacked by “renewable energy standards”

    When the US has to start importing natural gas at proper market prices then you will understand why the UK price :
    http://www.uswitch.com/ enter some figures for this result for british gas supplied electricity:
    Electricity unit rates: 25.104p per kWh 12.419p per kWh above 720 kWh p.a
    * These rates include VAT- the rates on your bill may exclude VAT

    Check the coal and gas prices compare to elecritricity here and you will see no price hike to cover renewables in the 20 year record. Electicity follows the other prices quite well.
    http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/prices/prices.aspx#domestic

    I should also point out that the cost I gave for wind is over a 10 year period. Extend this to the guarantee period for the turbine (15 years) and the price is less and extend it to the full expected life of currently 20 years (will post figures when I can access spread sheet.)

    Remember why would Ukraine/canada/etc sell gas to US at a price 50% below what it can sell to europe etc.

    The US is living on borrowed time.

    Can you please give me details of US coal and Nuclear total costs as I have for wind?

    davidmhoffer says: (mainly wrong)

    Spinning reserve is held for nuclear scrams 1GW in seconds
    Wind requires a max of 100MW for a wipe out of a wind farm.
    lack of wind conditions develop slowly and can be predicted so no spinning reserve is required
    see here for more details:
    http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/search/label/national%20grid
    Longannet and sizewell tripped out near simultaneously blacking out large arteas of UK in may 2008 (the report makes interesting reading)

    diogenes says: November 21, 2011 at 4:12 pm
    Enercon turbines have NO i.e. zero gearboxes as I have said above. They have a guarantee of 15 (12?) years. I would imagine that they expect few failures in this time.

  198. “needs backup”

    What’s the point of eating breakfast? You’re just going to have to eat again at noon?

  199. mike g says:

    R. Gates says:
    November 20, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    The Brits (and soon the Americans) are far better off not being responsible for controlling a sprawling Empire around the world. But it seems a stage that some countries must go through.

    Yes, we are better off. But, looking at current events, I don’t think you can say that about much of the former empire. So far, the only societal model that actually works is capitalism under a western rule of law. Thank you very much Britian and America for your contribution to mankind. And, thank you very much robber barrons for doing more against poverty than has been achieved by the sum total of all socialist progressive activism over the past century.

  200. mike g says:

    And, Willis, PRB is just where most of the high quality coal is. As we go deeper and deeper into energy poverty, lower and lower quality coal will be mined and consumed despite the protestations of the alarmist bedwetters.

  201. wws says:

    re: coal mines playing out

    first, coal mines are *always* playing out and new ones brought on line – how mines from 100 years ago are still online, after all? So that’s just the status quo ante.

    BUT – the answer to “What comes after?” is Natural Gas. We have found so many new natural gas reserves in the last 5 years alone that it’s unreal. Here’s a stat that’ll grab you – huge amounts of gas are now being produced as a by-product of the oil-shale drilling going on in the Bakken formation and the Williston basin, North Dakota. The gas is a by-product, not the goal, so it is essentially free (or valueless, depending on how you look at it) to the producers there. North Dakota has no large network of nat gas transmission lines, as older more developed producing areas do, and they are difficult and expensive to put in. (ie, reference the keystone controversy)

    Therefore, *Right* *Now*, 30% of ALL the nat gas produced in North Dakota (a huge amount, btw) is being flared off at the wellhead as waste.

    30% – that’s enough to power a medium sized city or two year round, and we’re just throwing it away since no one has made it a priority to make use of it. And farther south, Cheniere Energy (symbol LPG) has now gotten approval to liquify nat gas at our cheap prices and ship it to China (among other places) since the demand there is so much higher.

    So, although we talk about a resource shortage, we now have so insanely much natural gas already being produced that we are shipping it to China as surplus and burning it off as waste.

    Does that make any sense? Does that sound like we have any Real resource shortage at all in this country?

  202. Alternative energy sources will continue to be very important for mankind.This is inevitable because of growing demand for energy. Reserves of oil every year more and more reduced.

  203. davidmhoffer says:

    Kum Dollison says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:50 am
    No, Willis, you are still Misrepresenting what I said. I said, “The Mines Currently Operating, will be played out in 20 years.>>>

    Which, as Willis already demonstrated, is a completely misleading statement unto itself.

  204. davidmhoffer says:

    JJThoms;
    Remember why would Ukraine/canada/etc sell gas to US at a price 50% below what it can sell to europe etc.>>>

    The Ukraine sells gas to the U.S.? LOL. They’re an importer of natural gas from Russia.
    Last I checked, there was no pipeline from Canada to Europe through which to ship gas.

    JJThoms;
    davidmhoffer says: (mainly wrong)
    Spinning reserve is held for nuclear scrams 1GW in seconds
    Wind requires a max of 100MW for a wipe out of a wind farm.
    lack of wind conditions develop slowly and can be predicted so no spinning reserve is required>>>

    Wow. It would take many paragraphs to explain why that is wrong. Bottom line is that “seconds” doesn’t suffice in many instances, and the ripple effect through the grid can cause major problems at levels far below that required to take the wind farm alone down. It is the speed of reaction to a fluctuation of a given size that becomes the issue. As the percdentage of the total coming from wind increases, the number, magnitude, and speed of incidents that the reserve capacity must respond to also increases. Wind conditions develop slowly? Well sure they do. But fluctuations in the wind conditions happen very very fast and they cannot be predicted at all. Increase reliance on wind, and you increase the possibility of a major outage many times over.

    JJThoms;
    I should also point out that the cost I gave for wind is over a 10 year period. Extend this to the guarantee period for the turbine (15 years) and the price is less and extend it to the full expected life of currently 20 years (will post figures when I can access spread sheet.)>>>

    Fine. How about we go 60 years? Now you have to TRIPLE your capital costs while gas, coal, nuclear all just stay the same because those plants can easily be designed for that kind of a lifetime, and likely more.

    JJThoms;
    The US is living on borrowed time.>>>

    A statement devoid of facts, reasoning, and value. The first sign of an argument that has no wind left in its sails…

  205. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Kum Dollison says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:50 am

    No, Willis, you are still Misrepresenting what I said. I said, “The Mines Currently Operating, will be played out in 20 years. The fact that there is a lot of coal way down deep below those mines is interesting, and, possibly, important, but is Not a factor in the depletion of the Mines I Referenced.

    Bull. Your clear implication was that we would run out of Powder River Basin coal in twenty years. Why else would you say that

    … and most of the current mines operating there will be “played out” in 20 yrs. Maybe you’d care to ask, “what/where next?” The times they are a’changin’, son; time to move on.

    But there is absolutely no need to “move on”, the mines are not “playing out” in twenty years.

    Finally, despite repeated requests, you haven’t provided a scrap of backup for your claim that “the mines currently operating will be played out in 20 years”.

    In other words … you got nothing, my friend. You can’t even back up your claim. Come back when you have something more than your mouth to support your ideas.

    w.

    PS—Your “caps lock” key seems To be Stuck Halfway down …

  206. Willis Eschenbach says:

    JJThoms says:
    November 22, 2011 at 5:41 am

    “Nine British pence is about US 15¢ per kWh. Don’t know about where you are, but if that is “below end consumer price” I suspect that the local prices have been hijacked by “renewable energy standards”

    When the US has to start importing natural gas at proper market prices then you will understand why the UK price :
    http://www.uswitch.com/ enter some figures for this result for british gas supplied electricity:
    Electricity unit rates: 25.104p per kWh 12.419p per kWh above 720 kWh p.a
    * These rates include VAT- the rates on your bill may exclude VAT

    Check the coal and gas prices compare to elecritricity here and you will see no price hike to cover renewables in the 20 year record. Electicity follows the other prices quite well.
    http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/prices/prices.aspx#domestic

    I should also point out that the cost I gave for wind is over a 10 year period. Extend this to the guarantee period for the turbine (15 years) and the price is less and extend it to the full expected life of currently 20 years (will post figures when I can access spread sheet.)

    JJThoms, the UK price for electricity is about 15% above the average EU price. It’s higher than anywhere but Ireland. So you can’t even beat the other EU countries, much less the US.

    Remember why would Ukraine/canada/etc sell gas to US at a price 50% below what it can sell to europe etc.

    The US is living on borrowed time.

    Cite? I’ve never in my life heard that claim, that the US can buy natural gas at a price 50% lower than Europe. And to answer your question, I doubt very very much if Canada is selling gas to us 50% below what it might get for the same gas elsewhere. Canadians are many things, but “economically suicidal” isn’t on the list.

    So you come up with your citation, JJ, we can wait. It will be a long wait. You are in fantasy about US prices, for gas as well as electricity.

    In any case, you had asked for a citation showing your wind power was a dead loss. You actually provided the citation yourself. Now you’re making up a lot of bull to try to explain why your windmill charges more than double the cost of electricity here. Heck, even your imaginary 50% discount isn’t enough to explain that … and besides … it’s imaginary.

    Still waiting for your citation about the US getting a 50% discount on Ukraine gas, once I get that we can resume the discussion.

    w.

  207. Gareth Phillips says:

    I don’t think anyone is ever going to get any sense out of Willis. He is unable to engage in discussion without resorting to insults, which he gleefully celebrates. He is the opposite side of the coin to John Cook, but with the same characteristics. Personally (and I would recommend the same path to others) ignore him, but above all don’t be driven from the site by his behaviour. He either has an interesting developmental disorder, or he is supporting the opposition by bringing this site into disrepute. The vast majority of posts in this thread look to me well reasoned, even if I do not agree with them. Willis is unable to see this and can only respond with insults. So don’t get drawn in. Debate the wind/coal/energy issue with others, but when you fight with hogs they love it, but it’s you who gets dirty.
    Still, it’s a real pity Willis gets away with it every time. In my time working in forensic psychiatry if I have learned one thing it is this. Ignore the bad and provocative behavior and re-enforce the positive one. Sometimes I forget that rule, but it’s situations like this that remind me how important it is.
    As usual moderator I am happy to have this post moderated, but if that happens it is my hope you will be consistent and give the inflammatory posts by Willis the same scrutiny.

    As Anthony states in his policies:

    Most people wouldn’t be rude, loud, or insulting in somebody’s home or office, I ask for the same level of civility and courtesy here.

    Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.

  208. Smokey says:

    Gareth Phillips says:

    “I don’t think anyone is ever going to get any sense out of Willis… He is the opposite side of the coin to John Cook, but with the same characteristics.”

    Don’t be ridiculous. Really. You sound idiotic. Willis writes rational, well researched, well thought out articles, and defends them from unthinking critics. On the very few occasions that he has made a mistake, he readily admits it and makes adjustments. OTOH, John Cook is a juvenile cartoonist on the Soros payroll, emitting propaganda that is lapped up by unthinking trolls who get their easily debunked talking points from Cook’s censoring Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science and attempt to promote them here.

    Run along now back to PSPS and preach to the mouth breathers there, who will all nod in unison at any anti-science, catastrophic AGW point of view.

  209. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:25 am

    … As Anthony states in his policies:

    Most people wouldn’t be rude, loud, or insulting in somebody’s home or office, I ask for the same level of civility and courtesy here.

    Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.

    Gareth, you walked in the door and before contributing anything of value at all to the thread, before saying a word on the actual subject of the thread, you immediately got on my case because you didn’t like my interaction with Dave Springer.

    Since then all you have done is whinge and complain about me. You have made no comments about the science or the topic at hand, despite my inviting you several times to stop with your candy-ass moralizing and get back to the real issues.

    Perhaps in your world your kind of action passes for manners. Around here, coming in, not mentioning the science, and doing nothing but getting on my case for some imagined thoughtcrimes you think I committed just puts you firmly in the camp of “those without manners”.

    So if you are confused about why you have gained absolutely no respect around here, remember what the policy says. Respect is given to those with manners. So when you get some, you might get some.

    Again, if you have actual comments about the topic, you are more than welcome to bring them up. That’s what we do mostly here, discuss ideas.

    But if all you plan to do is just continue your endless bitching about how I’m a mean, mean man, I may just take you up on your repeated invitation to moderate your reply.

    w.

  210. JJThoms says:

    Apologies it was the Ukraine that were playing havoc with EU gas but it was gas from Russia passing through Ukraine.
    http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=russian-natural-gas
    current $434.18 (us) per 1000cu metres
    1 mmbtu (what a quaint unit!)=1e6 BTU=28.32 cu metres
    http://wtrg.com/daily/gasprice.html
    highest price is $4.8 per mmbtu =$169.5 per 1000cu metres

    i.e. the EU is paying 2.6 times as much for natural gas as the US.
    Perhaps Canda SHOULD look to EU for their gas production. And BNO you do not need a pipe line these will do nicely:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG_carrier

    Just found this:
    http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/chart-ngeu.html
    same units but shows over 4 time US price!

    Pumping NG through pipes will use about 25% of the energy from the gas!.

    Willis “So you can’t even beat the other EU countries, much less the US.”

    I am trying to beat no one I am just saying that wind is just about at break even with other forms.

    Also in 20 years I simply build a new turbine if nercessat and I again get the same (or less) cost per Unit.
    Coal/gas/nuclear need more maintenance but will as you point out last perhaps 60 years. (none past 40 yet!)

    I am still waiting for you to break down the full cost per unit (un-subsidised by cheap loans etc.) of nuclear and gas so it is difficult to make a comparison.

    I wait

  211. JJThoms says:

    davidmhoffer says: November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
    … and the ripple effect through the grid can cause major problems at levels far below that required to take the wind farm alone down. It is the speed of reaction to a fluctuation of a given size that becomes the issue. As the percdentage of the total coming from wind increases, the number, magnitude, and speed of incidents that the reserve capacity must respond to also increases. Wind conditions develop slowly? Well sure they do. But fluctuations in the wind conditions happen very very fast and they cannot be predicted at all. Increase reliance on wind, and you increase the possibility of a major outage many times over”
    Read the referenced may 2008 from national grid
    http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/E19B4740-C056-4795-A567-91725ECF799B/32165/PublicFrequencyDeviationReport.pdf
    The UK grid is very robust
    many instant providers (how long does it take to fire up a diesel?
    Many industries willing to take cheap electricity and accept fast disconnection
    greater than 1.3 GW pumped storage giving 12 seconds to full output (Dinorwig)
    There is no way that the wind can suddenly cease over the whole of the UK. It will take hours for wind to cease – it will be a progessive shut down requiring response of minutes to days from the generators.

    Face it it is a single large scale failure that spinning reserve is for.

  212. TheJollyGreenMan says:

    Hi Willis, I noticed the exchange about the depletion of coal mining reserves. May I add the following to the conversation?

    In the investment and corporate world there are specific connotations attached to the term ‘Reserves”. After the Bre-X scandal, http://geology.about.com/cs/mineralogy/a/aa042097.htm where the guys claimed they have more gold in their deposit than the gold in Fort Knox, the mining and investment community had a serious rethink about how mineral resources and ore reserves are calculated and reported in particular to the investment public.

    One of the first, and best, guidelines were prepared by the Australasian work group that prepared the well-known and generally most accepted JORC code. http://www.jorc.org/history.asp This Joint Ore Resources Committee prepared a guideline that is updated about once a decade and last I looked is in its fifth revision.

    The SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) of the New York Stock Exchange has also published its own guidelines for ore resources and ore reserves reporting. (The reason you don’t have a general guideline that applies to the whole USA may be attributed to Bill Clinton that disbanded the US Bureau of Mines in 1995? Maybe a similar fate should befall the pernicious EPA mob?)

    The underlying logic of the codes is very similar. First you outline a mineral deposit with widely spaced drilling and you end up with an Inferred Mineral Resource. If the results are promising you commence with the second round of exploration drilling and during this stage you can step-out to expand the extend of the mineral deposit, trying to establish the outer boundaries, and do some in-fill drilling in-between the previous set of boreholes, to confirm the grade and continuity. Usually you can then end up with a small portion of the deposit that can be classified as a Measured Mineral Resource, where the drilling was most intensive – closely spaced – and a larger part of the deposit that is classified as an Indicated Mineral Resource.

    So there you have the start of the technical investigation, a Mineral Resource with decreasing levels of confidence, from Measured – through to Indicated – and lastly Inferred Mineral Resources. The financial and technical guys can start working on a feasibility study. On the technical side you usually have a project geologist, surveyors, rock mechanics engineer, mining engineer, metallurgical engineer, electrical and mechanical engineers, civil engineers reporting to a project manager doing the study. On the financial side you have the corporate finance, procurement and marketing guys beavering away. Once all technical and financial studies are completed you can report a Proven, Probable and Possible Ore Reserves.

    For a project to go ahead you would like about one and half times the payback period covered with Proven Reserves. That gives assurances to the lenders that you are able to pay back the initial capital investment. (Keep in mind that is round about the period when the NPV of the project to date is just above zero.) For the balance of the project you would like an equal distribution of Probable and Possible Ore Reserves, the logic being that you want to minimise the front-end-loading of project.

    Only a fool would waste money on drilling more than absolutely necessary, to finance and start-up a project. Twenty years is an outside limit for a mining project. Keep in mind that in the case of a captive coal mine (meaning a coal mine tied to a power station) the utility company may ask the mining company to do a study of the total potential mineral deposit contained in a lease area to ensure there is enough feed for the life of the power station and this potential reserves are used for internal consumption only, with no standing on any stock exchange anywhere in the world.

    To be able to report a mineral deposit as an ore Reserve costs time and money. It is this factor that all the Peak Oilers and Coal Depletion Scammers don’t want to understand and keep parroting about. The German Engineers, not generally noted for their sense of humour, refer to the Oil Constant, as the current number of years when oil will run out. Since the 1950’s to this day the oil constant is 20 years. The oil and coal constant has a very logic and simple to understand reasoning behind it. Companies extract oil and mine coal to make money, why else bother?

  213. cgh says:

    JJThoms: “I am still waiting for you to break down the full cost per unit (un-subsidised by cheap loans etc.) of nuclear and gas so it is difficult to make a comparison.”

    Bruce Power is refurbishing four reactors in Ontario, a $12 billion Cdn. project. Cost of power Bruce is charging for the refurbished reactors? 5.6 cents/kWh.

    And just so you understand clearly, Bruce Power is a private company, not a government entity. So that 5.6 cents has to cover all of its current and future costs including fuel disposal and site decomissioning, plus the project and capital costs of the refurbishment.

  214. JJThoms says:

    http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/bruce-power-contract-amendment-february-2011
    The refurbishment contract with Bruce Power continues to provide good value. A July 2009 contract amendment protects ratepayers from cost overruns – ratepayer exposure is capped at $3.4 billion. This remains unchanged.
    Bruce Power received about 6.4 cents per kilowatt-hour for the electricity it generated from Bruce A in 2010, which is 1,500 MW of cost-effective power generation in the province.

  215. JJThoms says:

    Willis I know you are trawling through mails looking for that killer quote to take out of context. BUT I have given you some questions and some figures above for which I would like a response, Thanks

  216. Willis Eschenbach says:

    JJThoms says:
    November 24, 2011 at 4:57 am

    Willis I know you are trawling through mails looking for that killer quote to take out of context. BUT I have given you some questions and some figures above for which I would like a response, Thanks

    Gosh, thanks for the generous gift of the “questions and some figures”, but I don’t discuss science with people who use it as an excuse to insult me, JJT. It’s an oddity of mine, but I’m sure you know that. I suspect from your unpleasant tone that you have something you think is important. I mean, why else would you be acting so nasty? It’s an infallible sign, happens every time an idiot comes across some fools gold, they turn all ugly and antisocial like you are doing. Or even when they find real gold, although that is vanishingly uncommon.

    But why should anyone care about whatever you think you’ve found, whether it’s fools gold or real, when all it seems to do is make you go around insulting folks?

    Come back when you want to play nice, acting like an unpleasant and rather fragrant anus just makes me go elsewhere to play with someone who is a decent human being.

    w.

  217. JJThoms says:

    Come back when you want to play nice, acting like an unpleasant and rather fragrant anus just makes me go elsewhere to play with someone who is a decent human being.

    Cripes that is so purile. It is an obvious sign that your argument is lost. I’m surprised you did not bring up the case of Hitler being a vegetarian (which he wasn’t!!!). I have NOT insulted you in any where near your terms.
    I will just assume that you have no answer and my point is made.

    Wind turbines are on a par with MOST other sources of energy – especially in the UK

  218. Willis Eschenbach says:

    JJT, your specious claim is that my argument is “lost”?

    Say what?

    I don’t play with jerks who go out of their way to insult me, JJT. You can “assume that [I] have no answer” all you want. Out here in the real world, where your assumptions are just that, I haven’t even read your question, so you are correct. I have no answer … but not for the reason you assume. I have no answer because at this point, your idiotic accusations mean that I haven’t even looked at what you might have said.

    I figured if you had the balls to apologize for your nastiness, we could continue. Instead, you have doubled down, and now you are trying to defend being an asshat. Good luck with that one. Defending your god-given right to be an asshat merely proves you are one … you sure that’s the direction you want to take?

    Come back when you are willing to apologize for your ugly comments, JJT, or don’t. I don’t care either way. If you want to continue the discussion, I’m happy to eventually read your question and see if I can answer it. Maybe I can, maybe not.

    But I’m totally unwilling to even look at your question when you want to be a dork about it. Go dump your existential angst and your inchoate outrage and your unpleasant assumptions on someone else, I don’t deserve them.

    w.

    PS—to keep people from laughing at you in the future, let me point out that the word is spelled “puerile”.

  219. jjthom says:

    Willis
    PS—to keep people from laughing at you in the future, let me point out that the word is spelled “puerile”.
    Thank you willis for mocking my dyslexia. I try to be accurate but the occasional one gets through.

    The only possible statement that I could possibly be construed as an insult is:”killer quote to take out of context”
    you respond with “an idiot, jerks, asshat, dork” Quite who is insulting whom?

    Still waiting for your citation about the US getting a 50% discount on Ukraine gas, once I get that we can resume the discussion</i?.
    I gave the reference: US gas is 25% of EU gas price
    I asked for a breakdown of costs for coal/nuclear
    I got nothing

    I do not make childish apologies for words I have said unless they are shown to be in error.

    So we leave it here. I wonder who looks the biggest idiot?

  220. TheJollyGreenMan says:

    Willis, I admire your restraint.

    Firstly, we know the Dutch energy firms are on the run, they are in trouble in Germany and the Netherlands where people are questioning the ever increasing price of electricity.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-dutch-wind-idUSTRE7AF1JM20111116

    And we know that public opinion is turning against the cost of SAVING THE PLANET in the UK.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8901282/The-Duke-of-Edinburgh-sees-clearly-over-wind-turbines.html#disqus_thread

    The Duke of Edinburgh, a decorated Naval officer of WWII, has a lot of support and this Dutch snide that snitched is in trouble.

  221. jjthom says:

    TheJollyGreenMan says: November 24, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sl_1Q-0v_G8/Ts67N4x4QXI/AAAAAAAAAMU/WJPqNu9caOE/s640/current+fuel+price+indices.png
    check this and tell me where the electricity price suddenly jump or slowly move up due to GREEN taxes. It looks to me as if primary fuels track electricity rather well.

  222. TheJollyGreenMan says:

    Gaan Kak!

  223. Macbeth says:

    Whats really a disgrace is that the skeptic community wont drop the logical fallacy of ‘windmills spoil the countryside/look ugly’. You really do discredit the effort with this foolishness. Compare and contrast the picture in this article by entering “coal plant station uk” into Google Image search.

  224. Willis Eschenbach says:

    jjthom says:
    November 24, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Willis

    PS—to keep people from laughing at you in the future, let me point out that the word is spelled “puerile”

    .
    Thank you willis for mocking my dyslexia. I try to be accurate but the occasional one gets through.

    JJThom, if you want to play with the big boys, you can’t be playing the “can I haz sydlexia” pity card. Several choices. Buckle down and learn how to spell, or learn to laugh about it, or go play somewhere that spelling doesn’t matter. But don’t whinge about it and accuse people of mocking you and use it to try to gain advantage. Doesn’t work with me.

    The only possible statement that I could possibly be construed as an insult is:”killer quote to take out of context”
    you respond with “an idiot, jerks, asshat, dork” Quite who is insulting whom?

    “Possibly construed as an insult”???

    Referring to the Climategate 2.0 emails, you said that I was out “trawling through mails looking for that killer quote to take out of context”.

    On what planet is that not a very ugly insult?

    I quite reasonably asked for an apology.

    In response you called me “purile” and did not apologize. Which I thought was magnificently ugly, and deserving of comment.

    So in answer to the question you ask, “Quite who is insulting whom?”, that would be me. Insulting you. For being deliberately unpleasant and then refusing to apologize.

    Still waiting for your citation about the US getting a 50% discount on Ukraine gas, once I get that we can resume the discussion</i?.
    I gave the reference: US gas is 25% of EU gas price
    I asked for a breakdown of costs for coal/nuclear
    I got nothing

    I’m glad you are still waiting. Keep doing that. You’ll wait until hell freezes over if you don’t apologize.

    I do not make childish apologies for words I have said unless they are shown to be in error.

    Neither you nor I make childish apologies, I’m sure. But accusing me of “trawling for quotes to take out of context”, that’s not a “childish” accusation in any sense. That’s a massively dickish and ugly accusation to make when I had said nothing out of order to you.

    So we leave it here. I wonder who looks the biggest idiot?

    So in answer to the question you ask, “who looks the biggest idiot?”, that would be you. People can read. You accused me of misleading people by deliberately taking quotes out of context. If someone said that to anyone reading this, they’d ask for an apology. It is a deliberate, dirty, underhanded insult. People know that I was right to ask for an apology, and they notice that you have not offered one.

    See, unlike many people, I have deep and implicit trust in the knowledge and insight of the dark ocean of WUWT lurkers and posters.

    w.

  225. jjthom says:

    I promised you this so here it is:
    15 year wind turbine kWh cost
    build £889,650.00 install
    planning etc £434,583.00 install

    maintenance 0.0055 perkwh
    maintenance/year for delivered 280kwh £562.49 per year
    routine expenses £30,000.00 per year
    rating 1000 kwh
    load factor 28%
    deliverd power 280 kwh

    Balancing Cost £0.014 per kWh
    Short term Reserve £0.007 per kWh

    total install cost= £1,324,233.00
    install cost/delivered kwh £4,729.40
    conventional backup costs/year £51,544.08 per 280 kWh/year
    running cost/year £82,106.57 per 280 kWh/year

    over n years 15
    total install over 15 yrs £1,324,233.00
    running cost over 15 yrs £1,231,598.48
    total cost over 15 yrs £2,555,831.48

    power generated over 15 yrs 36817200 kWh

    cost per kwh over 15 yrs £0.069 per kWh
    cost per kwh over 20 yrs £0.060 per kWh
    cost per kwh over 10 yrs £0.087 per kWh

Comments are closed.