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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Correction
He is a decorated war hero.He is still alive,breathing fire,long may it last.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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..
Kum Dollison says:
November 20, 2011 at 7:18 pm
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.
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.
SOURCE
Noelene says:
November 20, 2011 at 8:04 pm
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):
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.
Carl Chapman: I believe that it was Prince Charles that said he wanted to be reincarnated as a virus, not his father Prince Phillip.
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.
That should read 21st Nov 2011 – touch tryping strikes again
Willis,
You may find this Daily Mail article interesting:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2064081/Hurrah-Philip-Wind-power-ruinous-folly-age.html