Who would have thunk? Maybe it had something to do with this video of a Vestas wind turbine:
I wonder if it used “Lucas” electronic parts? I owned an Austin Healy Sprite and a Triumph TR6 at one time, and the failure above looks familiar.
Excerpts from an article in the Guardian:
Vestas is to shut down its Isle of Wight factory in the face of collapsing demand from a wind-farming industry hobbled by the recession and red tape.
The group had planned to convert the factory in Newport so it could make blades for the British market, but said this morning that the paralysis gripping the industry meant that orders had ground to a halt. Such low demand could not justify the investment, Ditlev Engel, the chief executive, told the Guardian.
The UK’s only wind turbine manufacturing plant is to close, dealing a humiliating blow to the government’s promise to support low-carbon industries.”
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/28/vestas-wind-turbine-factory-close
See Vestas Wind Power Solutions here
Of course, windmills produce clean emissions free power, they don’t pollute.
Just to be fair, anyone have video or photos of a coal fired power plant exploding or uncontrollably catching fire?
h/t to David Segesta
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Smokey (10:16:36):
A comment from the article you posted:
Global warming is real. There is hard evidence that the
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, and there
is hard evidence that high atmospheric carbon dioxide
levels in the past were correlated with high global
temperature levels.
Some paragraphs ahead, the blogger says the CO2 is toxic.
Clear example on brainwashing windmills machine. Low frequency noise affects cognitive functions… “Hard… hard… hard evidence”. Heh!
Cory has it right. This doesn’t represent a return to common sense. It’s just more of the same. Fact is, the UK is at this point virtually guaranteed to experience major power shortages starting in about 6 years time when the existing nuclear plants reach the end of their life.
Even if a company started the project today (April 28th, 2009) the planning process is so vulnerable to special interest groups that it would be *at least* 15 years before a nuclear plant could actually generate any electricity.
Given that the anti-CO2 meme is still deeply embedded in the media, the public and Whitehall, new coal fired stations would probably take as long (if not longer) to plan and construct.
So to summarize:
Coal – No, can’t build those, too much C02.
Gas – No, Supplies are too unreliable
Nuclear – No, people are still afraid of glowing in the dark.
Wind – No can do. Need thousands and no-one wants them nearby. Places that aren’t near to people are beauty spots so no building there either.
Hydroelectric – See wind, plus the UK one of the densely populated countries on the planet.
Tidal – ROFLMAO
Start investing in hamster futures now!
I saw a very good article once that showed that wind turbines never repaid the carbon debt incurred in making, installing, connecting to the grid, maintaining and decommissioning them. the high cost reflects this simple observation. they are a joke.
REPLY to Dan Gibson Actually I’m very much for alternative energy, see the “about” tab above for a look at solar on my home, a local school, and my electric car.
Alternative energy can’t just be a dream, it has to be practical, economically sound, able to provide a constant source of power, and safe. The current windmill technology doesn’t get us there.
My brother in law headed up a company in the USA that made gearboxes for most of the windmills in the Tehachapi pass in SoCal. The maintenance was overwhelming. His company is now bankrupt, and if you drive the pass on hwy 58 you’ll see a good percentage are not functional. They just don’t hold up. – Anthony
It seems to me that, despite government intervention, the free market system is the best way to determine energy sources and this story supports that.
…And the Brits drink warm beer because they all have fridges made by Lucas…
“Anger at plans for nuclear power station to replace wind farm”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/28/haverigg-turbines-nuclear-power-plant
More bad news for the barmpots who think GBs power requirements can be largely met by renwables.
Alan
Is GE the next company to be owned by Obama and the US government?
NoAstronomer (10:44:52) :Start investing in hamster futures now!
I would say, “instead Start investing in French Energy futures now!” because, chances are that you will have to buy energy from France.
Dan Gibson (10:14:49) :
“I have a hard time understanding all the opposition to any new form of energy on this site. All the same things could have been said and probably were said about the horseless carriage (noisy, unreliable, dangerous), the cost of converting from steam and whale oil to petro, the lack of roads to support cars, the lack of gas stations. On and on. New concepts take time, trial and error.”
The only way your examples relate is that saying ‘wind energy is free, so let’s spend bundles to capture it’ is analogous (given the known ratio of wind power cost vs. result) to saying that we should convert to steam engines because the air is full of free water vapor.
[snip – you and I may disagree with the president, but I will not have name calling on this forum – Anthony]
DaveCF (10:47:29) :
…And the Brits drink warm beer because they all have fridges made by Lucas…
Hey hey hey! We drink warm beer because we *like* it and it has more flavour. Just keeping the facts straight here… 😉
I’m glad to see further outbreaks of common sense regarding wind turbines. I’m sure with a few more years of R&D they’ll become a lot more efficient, but that really isn’t the point; what popular proponents of wind and solar power always seem to skirt past quickly is the fact that it’s the *storage* of the energy that matters. If you can’t store it efficiently, you can’t balance it against demand, and the whole system becomes an expensive white elephant.
I say again (for the umpteenth time), money needs to be poured into nuclear fusion research. Anything else is folly.
Dan Gibson (10:14:49) :
Just a few questions for you:
1). What is the cost per Kwh from one of these machines?
2). What is the cost per KwH from alternatives such as nuclear, coal and oil?
3). What is the end to end carbon footprint of a wind turbine?
4). What is the additional cost to the grid of running wind turbines – which operate in a way that requires back-up from other energy providing platforms that often have to operate at inefficient levels in such a system?
John Galt (10:29:16) :
“Imagine a world where AGW believers ‘walked the walk’. I want to see them turn off their appliances and conveniences…”
…and their expensive computer data centers which are wasting massive amounts of energy (and computer time) running their inaccurate climate models.
With regards to the topic at hand, as a mechanical engineer, I am all for utilizing the entire spectrum of practical energy production methods, especially those which are the most economical and make use of native resources we have here in the US (e.g. coal and nuclear). I am amused by the people who think that technologies like solar and wind are “new” – in the US alone we’ve been working on these technologies for years and years! I am 47 and we were doing solar cells and wind turbines in high school (remember Jimmy Carter?). In fact, we have government research institute called NREL (the national Renewable Energy Lab) which has been devoted to this for over 30 years!
http://www.nrel.gov/
I am hopeful that some of the technologies will eventually be cost effective enough to deploy on a wide scale, but I’m afraid that will only happen once onerous Carbon taxes are imposed upon us to artificially make them cost effective. Unfortunately, we will then learn a big lesson about energy availability and reliability…
Dan Gibson (10:14:49) :
“I have a hard time understanding all the opposition to any new form of energy on this site. All the same things could have been said and probably were said about the horseless carriage (noisy, unreliable, dangerous), the cost of converting from steam and whale oil to petro, the lack of roads to support cars, the lack of gas stations. On and on. New concepts take time, trial and error. Bucks change hands, fortunes are won and lost. It’s just a new face on the same old same old.
Chill.”
I don’t see any opposition to a new form of energy on this site. What many are opposed to is billions and billions of wasted subsidies and more billions in higher electric rates. Why spend big bucks to put up a windmill now when you know in advance that the thing is unreliable and expensive? The things are obsolete before they are constructed. A fraction of the subsidy money could be spent to develop better technology. Your comparison to the early days of motor vehicles is misapplied. It is more accurate ask what would have happened if the government mandated and subsidized steam powered cars that ran only on special roads that only worked about half the time.
Gee, go figure. An industry that exists only because it receives massive subsidies from taxpayers via a government that has supped from the Global Warming cup.
Here’s the real problem. They jsut can’t afford this level or type of religion anymore.
The UK is the second most indebted nation in the world and is still quickly digging. With a GDP of $2.787 trillion and a National Debt of $9.30 trillion, their % Dept to GDP is 336%. Only rich nations can afford to blow money on windmills and solar farms and the UK is no longer rich enough to afford both pursuit of AGW religion and doing the more mundane things like pave the roads and keep the schools open.
It could be worse. Ireland has a % debt to GDP of 811% so there’ll be no wind farm subsidies there either.
The USA could still be screwed over. Right now the US status is a measly 95% dept to GDP. Obama is working hard to get that number up to the 160% range where he would be tied with France.
Just for giggles . . . of the top 15 indebted nations in the world . . 13 are European nations.
Go figure. They are so Green & Pious, but someone should tell them the green is money owed not the planet saved.
Oh, and having owned one (1) MG and two (2) Nortons, I can say with authority that Lucas Electronics is no more reliable that windmill generators. (Maybe worse.)
Do people really want this – http://visitwalesnow.org.uk/environment-in-wales.htm
a couple more failures:
one two and three
Guess I’d ultimately like these things to work well but…
Maybe Cap and Trade will build up enough centrifugal momentum!
To clarify this issue of clean energies vs. dirty ones I would suggest to everyone here (and pass the word also) to ask the following question to your friends, neighbours,etc:
Which is the color of CO2 gas?
To whoever answers you BLACK, you are in the obligation to teach the truth:
Colorless, transparent, clean, it is the gas you exhale and plants breathe
[snip – call to illegal action]
“Wind farm firm cutting 1,900 jobs”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8022688.stm
It’s in the BBC business section
“And the Brits drink warm beer because they all have fridges made by Lucas”
Cooling beer disguises the taste the colder the better if it’s really bad
We’ve had over 100 Automobile companies in the U.S. All have gone broke, save 3 (really, more like 1.)
My gut says “Wind” is a niche industry at best. A doomed industry, quite possibly. Still, why root against them?
Let’em do a few. See how it works out. Wish’em well.
“Kneejerk Negativism” against All attempts at Renewables only reinforces the suspicion that all anti-AGW’ism is rooted in, and financed by, “Big Oil,” “Big Coal,” Big Pigs, yada, yada, ad infinitum.
This experimentation isn’t costing us much money, in reality, and will help reinforce the sensible options in the long run. It’ll all work out.
I don’t understand all of this picking on Lucas. Sure the USA was the first with intermittent wipers but Lucas lead the way with intermittent headlights and intermittent ignition.
The wind may be intermittent too, but wind turbines will work as long as subsidies are steady.
It seems they weren’t subsidized enough…but perhaps here’s the solution to the “walk the walk” thing: instead of subsidizing such farms, why not power distribution companies and sellers offer renewable power at a cost comparable with it’s actual cost?
if Windpower Farmer John LLC needs to sell his power to Big Bad Power Company Inc. for $0.55 per kWh to stay in business, why then should not the big bad power company sell it to the consumers at, say, $0.56 kWh for those that want to ‘save the planet’? (note, these are made up numbers – I don’t know the true consumer cost would be).
(of course, I’m aware that most, if not all, AGW advocates want to spend other people’s money to save the planet).
{Great site, btw. Been reading it for a while and enjoy it immensely}