I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t read this message of a Danish group opposed to the plan. Greens clear-cutting trees in a national park and evicting people, whoda thunk?. Seems like a case of “we had to destroy the village to save it“. Here’s the description of the park from the Danish National Parks website:
The west of Thy has been designated as the first Danish national park. The National Park, Thy stretches for an up to 12-kilometer-wide belt along the Jutland west coast from Agger Tange in the south to Hanstholm in the north. It is an enormous and unspoiled natural area totaling 244 km2 – almost the size of the Danish island of Langeland. In the National Park you can go between outstretched, wind-swept wilds and aromatic pine trees. You can also throw yourself into the sparkling waves of the North Sea or bike through cool dune plantations.
I’ve reposted the message from the opposition group below.
Dear environmentally aware citizen of the world! www.nationalttestcenter.dk
Copenhagen, December 2009
The Danish government plans to clear forests and destroy unique nature for the benefit of industry.
The Danish environment minister Troels Lund Poulsen decided, on behalf of the government, on 30th September 2009, that the clearing of 15 km2 of forest in the north west of Denmark will take place. A test centre for the development of offshore windmills is planned to take up 30 km2 of land in the Thy region, near Østerild. This deforestation will create an increase of 400,000 tonnes of CO2 emission, the equivalent of the CO2 emission of 100,000 people per year.
The government will force the local population out of their homes. The reasoning behind this is said to be for the benefit of the Danish windmill industry, which will in turn create more Danish jobs. The regulations to finalise the evictions goes against Denmark’s constitution and is therefore clearly illegal.
In current plans, the area is categorised as a recreational area, where the set up of windmills is prohibited.
The region is one of Denmark’s most beautiful areas. With its rugged landscapes and grand views, as well as many rare species of animals, birds and plants, the area is representative of authentic Danish nature. There are very few areas of Denmark left, where one can experience darkness at night and complete silence.
The windmills, which are 250 meters tall, are planned to be along a 6 km linear south/north stretch. This will prevent birds in the international Ramsar-area, Vejlerne, which is situated to the east of the test centre, from flying west to the EU-habitat area Vullum Sø and to Thy National Park just south of Hanstholm.
The Danish government has not consulted properly about the plans. The Danish citizens had little time to put forward comments of the project. The hearing has only been 11 days long, with 9 of those being a national holiday.
The environment minister has decided that a report on this projects impact on nature and the wildlife will be completed by early December 2009. The consequence of this is that it is impossible to produce a well documented scientific report, to act as the foundation for a political decision.
The local population has formed an association, “Landforeningen for Bedre Miljø” (The Association for an Improved Environment) with the aim to inform about the environmental consequences for both the society and nature, if plans for the national test centre are followed through. So far, “Landsforeningen for Bedre Miljø“ has tried, in vain, to persuade the Danish government to produce a more thorough investigation of the project’s impacts on the surroundings.
The association is discontented with the planning process so far, because they have neglected ordinary, well-known, democratic principles, which Denmark otherwise uses every opportunity to talk about across the world.
If you, as an environmentally aware citizen of the world, thinks that questions ought to be asked concerning this unjust conduct towards our future generations inheritance of the nature, please spread the word about this planned national test centre.
###
Chris Horner of Pajamas Media has a summary of the issue:
President Obama was caught flatfooted by the embarrassing truth about Spain’s “green economy” after he instructed us — on eight separate occasions — to “think about what’s happening in countries like Spain” as a model for a U.S. future. Spain, of course, is suffering an economic meltdown from enormous public debt incurred through programs like a mandated “green economy.”
But Obama also just implored Spain to drastically scale back or risk becoming Greece. A flip he immediately flopped, by pushing hard to enact the Kerry-Lieberman “path to insolvency” bill based on … Spain. (Cue Benny Hill theme.)
So, embarrassed — or perhaps shameless — Obama changed his pitch: “Think about what’s happening in countries like Denmark.”
Of course, the experience of Denmark — a country with a population half that of Manhattan’s, not exactly a useful energy model for our rather different economy and society — is no great shakes, either.
But it gets better.
In my new book — Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America — I describe the absurdity of the “free ice cream” theories of the “green economy” our statist friends now embrace as their latest raison d’etre for a controlled society. My mother-in-law — visiting from Denmark — is reading my book with a particular interest in its exposé of what her heavily taxed labor pays for in that country.
The book also prompted her to relay an amazing new anecdote to the case study referred to by the Danes as “the fairy tale of the windmills.”
In the northern region of Jutland called Thy, Denmark is forcing people off of their land (“Kelo” is apparently Danish for “Kelo”) and — wait for it — preparing to clear-cut fifteen square kilometers of forest, and eventually thirty, in order to put up more of the bird- and job-killing monstrosities.
These giant windmills are not even intended to fill an energy gap for the Danish economy. No, they are to be onshore experimental versions of massive new off-shore turbines — with the facility to be rented out to wind mavens like Siemens.
The argument they are forwarding for doing this is not just the typically risible claim that this is necessary for the environment. After all, “[the] deforestation will create an increase of 400,000 tons of CO2 emissions, the equivalent of the CO2 emissions of 100,000 people per year.”
They are also forwarding the argument that this must occur in order to create Danish jobs.
Of course, “creating jobs,” to the extent such mandates can do this (as they are typically net job killers), appears much more necessary after the state first made it difficult for the private sector to do such things. Denmark enforced what methods, and what quantity of those methods, are acceptable for producing electricity. It always turns out that the acceptable ways are inefficient, intermittent, and expensive. Which sort of explains the need for mandates.
read the rest here:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gareth Phillips says:
May 24, 2010 at 10:42 am
Hi, I know this area and it is indeed windy. If there potential is there, why not use it? The trees will grow again, though it’s unlikely the wind will stop, so why not use the energy ?
__________________________________________________________________________
As Far as I can tell there are two problems. First this is a unique area – “The region is one of Denmark’s most beautiful areas. With its rugged landscapes and grand views, as well as many rare species of animals, birds and plants, the area is representative of authentic Danish nature. There are very few areas of Denmark left,…”
The second and worse is that it is being rushed through so the impact is not studied and the Danish people are not consulted. In my experience whenever this happens it is because there is a lot of money to be made by someone, politicians have been paid off AND the decision is bad for the people/environment. Otherwise what is the rush?
To follow on from my post at 11.43, the best part of 3,000 wind turbines are on most days producing up to 0.5% of total generation from all sources and our previous govtt legislated that 15% must be produced by wind by 2015. Not to be outdone the new coalition intends to legislate for 30% wind power by 2020 – that’s 60 times the present actuality.
These people have little or no grasp on reality and yet we allow them to run our affairs.
We are undoubtedly as stupid as they are.
dave38 says:
May 24, 2010 at 11:17 am
“… how much energy will this windmill actually produce over it’s lifetime?
(Ec+Ew) -Ep
I suspect that the equation would show a very large positive number!
_______________________________________________________________________
Ec = energy to produce, transport and cure cement plus the energy required to clear “pad” prior to laying the cement.
Ew = energy to mine, smelt ore cast steel and fabricate windmill plus produce the factory plus transport materials
Ep = Energy produced over the projected life time of the windmill minus the down time from when it catches fire and burns.
Yes those are the numbers I really, really what to see quantified.
I learnt recently that in the UK, and therefore probably everywhere, wind turbines cannot be left idle for too long or their blades get overstressed and can bend or break. Therefore they are powered up BY the Grid to rotate. So folks, when you see wind turbines running they are just as likely to be USING energy as producing it. Maybe they should be sited around sailing lakes to generate wind on calm days.
Henry chance says:
May 24, 2010 at 12:34 pm
“….1 tower is 850 tons. It takes 4 tons of coal in the process to make one ton of steel.
These towers are a boom for the coal business. Another un intended consequence.
_________________________________________________________________________
Henry do you have the were with all to work up some very rough ball park figures on how much energy the building of a windmill will take?
That’s how it ought to read, Mike.
It amazes me that people trash “governmental socialism”, yet advocate for the greedy bastards that own the government and profit from the socialism.
get your heads on straight, it is one and same problem. we have socialism, and it is socialism for the rich.
our government have been bought and paid for, and are being used to rob us.
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
May 24, 2010 at 12:50 pm
This story just missed by a few days entry into my new book Wind Power Fraud.
By my calculations wind turbines have an Energy Returned On Energy Invested ratio of 0.29, which is worse than photovoltaic solar at 0.48. Wind and solar, like most alternative energies, are not sustainable.
____________________________________________________________________
First is the book available on Amazon and second can you do an article for WUWT on the economics “Energy Invested ratio” We really need that info to clobber our Senators with here in the US of A.
James says:
May 24, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Think of is as the blue event horizon of the massive black hole called Socialist Environmentalism
…and that massive black hole menaces to swallow the whole occidental civilization!That is why one of its first promoters, Maurice Strong, has moved to China…
Apply some common sense. Say we have one windmill unit suplying electricity at some price p, probably well above market price (why else would they need constant subsidy). In order to keep a steady output (asume sufficient wind speed 50% of the time) we need a parallel system to store energy in for use in the remaining time. The only system available now is pumping water up, and later running it through turbines, generating electricity. There is bound to be a substantial loss (friction) going both ways in this system, so a rough estimate would be that three such windmills at price 3p are needed to supply steady energy output from one such windmil. PT scandinavian hydroel. plants fill out the buffer role, but were we to rely fully on wind the price of these would also have to be added.
/Mikkel: fail troll is fail and troll.
dave38 says:
May 24, 2010 at 11:17 am
“… how much energy will this windmill actually produce over it’s lifetime? ”
It’s not as simple as that.
Here in Washington State we get 85% of our electricity from nuclear and hydro.
The state has a 15% ‘renewal energy standard’, nuclear and hydro does’t count. One could say ‘wow’, we will be able to be 100% carbon free if we add 15% windmills.
The windmills don’t run at peak load time. The wind blows primarily during the spring and fall. Our peak load is summer and winter(heating and cooling).
Adding 15% windmills will mean we simply turn down the hydro electric dam and nuclear plant during the spring and fall, saving absolutely zero emissions and burn coal during the summer and winter when we don’t have enough capacity because the wind doesn’t blow in the summer and winter.
I’m a big supporter of wind power, when it can be effectively implemented in a cost effective manner.
I live in New Hampshire on the coast, 50 miles or so where they projected the Cape Cod wind farms. They were shot down by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, of course, because of the NIMBY effect.
They had some good arguments, however, based on studies. The liberals can pay for good science when it is in their interest. Here are some of the “Vineyarders” arguments, (some are plain silly, like ruining the artists’ vistas) besides the main issue that they are net energy negative :
1) Lifetime – they are touted to last 15-20 years without maintenance. Truth be told, in practice it averages out to 4-5 years.
a) Bearings – they are of high tolerance steel, but they wear out, and go out-of-round. This causes vibrations that increase as the bearings wear, more or less from the get-go. This produces efficiency loss, of course, but moreover the vibrations begin to stress the foundations. Think of billions of little earthquakes. Think of the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
b) Even when set up in concrete pads directly on top of granite strata, the vibrations enable the 1000 ton behemoth to start drilling into the strata, starting with the edges and the weak points in the subsurface. In the sea, sand is a good abrasive. The turbines go out of vertical with a time frame related to the fitness of the material it is perched upon.
2) Migrating birds – someone here said this does not happen. Untrue. Birds follow the prevailing winds when they can, just like ancient mariners used to navigate east or west, utilizing different winds at different latitudes. Where the wind farms are most feasible are thus in the migrating bird routes. Raptors, like eagles and osprey, and bats are swatted by these behemoths especially in high winds that blow them into the rotors. See the eagles cut in half near Danish rotors.
3) Noise pollution – they are noisy, especially when the bearings are in between lubrication cycles (yes, each rotor requires tons of petroleum lubricant each period) or they are worn. This could impact whales and dolphins adversely (I did not make this up – it seems like the lamest argument – but the Greenpeaceniks have tried to stop submarines from communication using this argument, also).
Lots of birds who are used to living in that area are going to get hacked to pieces by the windmills.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again “the law of unintended consequences” at work.
As someone once said on WUWT (I paraphrase):
“You can’t reason with someone that doesn’t want to be reasoned with.”
We are heading for a co2 driven calamity. God help us!!!
Mikkel says:
May 24, 2010 at 12:59 pm
“…..That would require much more space than available here in comments. My point is that this goes far beyond the windmills. To focus on one very small topic, and only from one side, in a large political issue does not make sense at all…..
_______________________________________________________________________
Fine. Point us to some sources we can use google translate. Outline some of the points. Show us why this is not a clear cut politician/corporate back scratching fiasco. Because an area containing “rare species of animals, birds and plants” it is NOT a small topic. In the state of California, the delta smelt, is causing a regional drought and the loss of one of some of the most productive farmland in the USA.
” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service yesterday proposed that the delta smelt, a tiny fish indigenous to the Upper Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in northern California, be designated a threatened species, an action that could pose a threat to the state’s vast water delivery system.
The humble smelt – it grows only to about three inches in length – could have an economic impact on California that would make the current controversy over the northern spotted owl that threatens the logging industry in the Pacific Northwest look tame by comparison.” http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1087183.html
“….The pump restrictions may be good for the delta smelt, but they’re awful for California. As a result of the restrictions, thousands of acres of farmland in the once fertile western San Joaquin Valley are drying up, 85,000 Californian farmers and laborers are out of work, and whole towns are dying. In Mendota, a century-old farming town west of Fresno, unemployment has reached 41 percent. In nearby Firebaugh, the unemployment rate has reached 40 percent. Overall, the pump restrictions are expected to cost California’s agriculture industry upwards of $500 million per year, indefinitely….” http://www.thedcwriteup.com/tag/delta-smelt/
So give me some really good reasons why Danish rare species should be sacrificed to the windmills but the delta smelt is so holy it can cause the economic devastation on an area about half the size of Denmark.
San Joaquin Valley, California, comprising about 10,000 square miles, while Denmark occupies 16,621 square miles.
peterhodges says:
May 24, 2010 at 1:25 pm
“….get your heads on straight, it is one and same problem. we have socialism, and it is socialism for the rich.
our government have been bought and paid for, and are being used to rob us.”
Truer words were never spoken. Socialist and Environmentalists never look behind the curtain to see WHO is really benefiting from all the legislation. The Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve.
“Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
* One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
* Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.
* With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.” http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm
On my Dad’s farm in Zambia we had windmills, five of them. Each was located next to a dam which was a circular concrete contruction about 50 feet in diameter and about eight feet deep. The windmill cranked a pump at the bottom of a not-too-deep borehole and pumped water into the dam. It was and still is a perfect arrangement. We used the water from the dams about once a week for irrigation. The dams were always just about full when we wanted to pump from them.
We didn’t care when and for how long the windmills turned and cranked the pumps because we were SAVING the output.
There’s the crux of the matter. Windmills are fantastic when you can SAVE their output. They are USELESS when you have to depend on the vagaries of their output for your economic survival.
Oh, we also provided access to the dams to ducks and we raised fish in the dams, too (Kafue tilapia, referred to as bream. Very tasty!).
Glenn says:
May 24, 2010 at 11:53 am
“So, what exactly is your position? That wind turbines shouldn’t be built in an effort to try to reduce our dependency on oil/gas/coal? It’s one thing to be skeptical about AGW (as I am), but that doesn’t negate the wisdom of moving towards clean, renewable energy sources. Who cares if a few trees are cut down in the process?”
Clean? Have you considered the “dirty” steel mills required to make the windmills? Or the redundant refined aluminum and copper required to operate wind generation farms? Clean? How so? Of course, being a capitalist as I am, I like to consider cost also. I can’t speak for Denmark, but here in Kansas, it’s about $0.17/kwh for wind generated electricity, coal $0.03, nuke $0.05. Why are we trying to replace our dependency on fossil fuel again? Oh yeh, because we don’t want to mine or drill it here. Typically, when one speaks of “clean” energy, most today are referring to the CO2 output. Constraining CO2 emissions seems to be the major impetus behind going to wind generated electricity. While windmills alone seems to save on CO2 emissions a bit, when combined with deforestation, it is hard to imagine any CO2 savings at all. Why is the world putting windmills up? It isn’t for the CO2 emissions savings and it isn’t cost savings and it certainly isn’t reliability. As mentioned in the article, some put forth the position that it could be a jobs creation project. As it works in the U.S., most of the windmills are made by China, and put together with Chinese steel. So, in a way, we are creating jobs, just not here, but we get the extra bonus of putting a few nails in the coffins of our coal and steel industry. (I just for the life of me can’t figure out why our economic recovery is taking so long.) It is impossible for me to believe this was unintentional. While I can’t speak for anybody else, my position is, it’s time for a cleansing.
harrywr2 says:
“…..I’m a big supporter of wind power, when it can be effectively implemented in a cost effective manner.”
I would be too, if I were to ever see it happen.
“Sordnay says:
May 24, 2010 at 11:21 am
The “job killers” meme is from that Spanish paper? any other source for that claim?
and the bird killer meme… that’s an ultra-green complaint, as valid as “CO2 is a po…”
Actually in Southern Alberta part of the daily maintenance is picking up the dead bats and birds … there are large studies going on because the bats for example, are actually killed by the low pressure at the blade tips, not by being struck. There are lots of bird hits, anyone who has done a modicum of research knows …
Just Google it.
eg: http://www.troymedia.com/?p=10037
“Recent data cited by the Golden Gate Audubon Society show that wind farms in California’s Altamont Pass kill more than 7,000 birds a year, including 94 golden eagles and more than 1,600 falcons, hawks and owls. Wind power advocates are quick to point out that Altamont is a worst case because of its high-speed turbine blades, and it’s true that newer technology is much more bird-friendly. Yet, the toll remains high and the species killed important. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that wind power turbine blades kill at least 75,000 birds a year.
And a 2007 report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences pointed out that peregrine falcons and other raptors that “are lower in abundance than many other bird species” are attracted to the same windy areas favoured for power turbines. Regardless of the exact figure, no one can deny that the North American wind power bird toll is significant and that eagles, falcons, hawks and owls are the more vulnerable, not the hugely plentiful game birds.”
dave38 says: “…So, how much energy is used to make the cement for this platform? Lets call it Ec. And how much energy is used to make the windmill? Lets call it Ew. Then how much energy will this windmill actually produce over it’s lifetime? Call it Ep. so we have (Ec+Ew) -Ep. I suspect that the equation would show a very large positive number!”
And I suspect you’re wrong. Can you post actual numbers, or is this some sort of gedankenexperiment?
@ur momisugly Gail Combs says:
May 24, 2010 at 2:29 pm
peterhodges says:
May 24, 2010 at 1:25 pm
“….get your heads on straight, it is one and same problem. we have socialism, and it is socialism for the rich.
our government have been bought and paid for, and are being used to rob us.”
Truer words were never spoken. Socialist and Environmentalists never look behind the curtain to see WHO is really benefiting from all the legislation. The Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve.
Let me take this opportunity to inform folks that, in the USA at least, we are not totally controlled by the Federal Government; provided the States and their citizens have the cojones to stand up and be counted. There are avenues which can be legally pursued by the States if the Federal burden becomes too onerous or in other areas in which the Federal Gov’t is neglecting it’s duties.
One such recourse is noted below.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscvie…
Sec. 109. Maintenance of other troops
-STATUTE-
(a) In time of peace, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may maintain
no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces
authorized by subsection (c).
(b) Nothing in this title limits the right of a State, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the
Virgin Islands to use its National Guard or its defense forces
authorized by subsection (c) within its borders in time of peace,
or prevents it from organizing and maintaining police or
constabulary.
(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the
Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain
defense forces. A defense force established under this section may
be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive
(or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia)
considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted
into the armed forces.
(d) A member of a defense force established under subsection (c)
is not, because of that membership, exempt from service in the
armed forces, nor is he entitled to pay, allowances, subsistence,
transportation, or medical care or treatment, from funds of the
United States.
(e) A person may not become a member of a defense force
established under subsection (c) if he is a member of a reserve
component of the armed forces.
Also found this on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_guard , which lists the States currently having a State Defense Force (SDF ).
peterhodges:
I have difficulties arguing with people who copy and paste my utterances, change them into their opposite and don’t remove my name.
Evicting people from their homes for windmills.How disgusting.
Oh sorry,I misspoke
Evicting people from their homes for mining.How disgusting.