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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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, …..
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.
“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.
“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 ?
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.
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.
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.
Renewable energy on the Canary Islands | Global Ideas
http://youtu.be/SX_Y4qdL8no
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
http://youtu.be/ScyqfG9nv0E
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.
“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 ?
“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
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.
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.
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.
• 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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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!
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.
traal says:
“somewhat different!”
Nope.
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.
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?
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?