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.
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.
ROTFLMAO Thread Winner!
Willis, tell him what he’s won …
Robertvdl says:
November 20, 2011 at 5:02 pm
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
================
with near 11000 quakes and eruptions ongoing…baaad idea.
with all the volcanos on and around you think theyd tap that…
‘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.
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!
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?
How much electricity does the UK get from oil? One percent, two percent? Is there oil under those estates?
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?
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.
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!
To bad the CEO of Duke Energy doesn’t feel the same way.
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.
****
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.
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!”
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’!
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)
Gareth Phillips says:
November 21, 2011 at 12:33 am
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.
Gareth Phillips says:
November 21, 2011 at 12:33 am
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.
Gareth Phillips says:
November 21, 2011 at 12:44 am
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.
I read somewhere that there is ROADKILL cookbook for sale in America.
When are we going to see the BIRDKILL cookbook?
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.
Kum Dollison says:
November 21, 2011 at 3:14 am
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):
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.
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
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:
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.