UPDATE: 9:50AM 2/28 Professor Kelly responds in comments. It seems the Times saw fit to remove an important portion of his first paragraph. I’ve highlighted the missing text in red. Gobsmacking that they couldn’t handle this one sentence but left the rest untouched – Anthony
M J Kelly Submitted on 2012/02/28 at 9:13 am
If I told you that the first sentence of my letter was edited, your readers might be mollified.
I wrote:
Andrew Motion (report, Feb 23) is correct to castigate climate change deniers, as the climate has always been changing, but he is profoundly mistaken in linking all those who oppose the current climate science orthodoxy into one group.
Michael Kelly
=============================================================
This is a rather strong condemnation of the state of affairs in Climate Science. Professor Michael J. Kelly of the University of Cambridge Department of Engineering has written a scathing letter to The Times about rightfully criticizing “deniers” and lumping everyone else who questions climate science conclusions into that same meme. Most people I know of agree that CO2 has some impact, but the magnitude and feedbacks are the real issues of debate. Ben Pile has this to say in his summary of the Fakegate:
The myth of the climate change denier exists in the heads of environmentalists, and seems to prevent them entering into conversation with anyone that dares to criticise environmentalism. The crusade of ‘communicating’ climate change is not a project that involves an exchange of views. To criticise environmentalism is to ‘deny The Science’, no matter how incoherent the environmentalist’s grasp of science or how lacking his or her sense of proportion.
Kelly, in his letter to the times, says what we’ve been saying for a long time; the models and the effects have been grossly oversold, and real-world observations don’t match the sales brochure. He writes:
Sir, Andrew Motion (report, Feb 23) is correct to castigate climate change deniers, but he is profoundly mistaken in linking all those who oppose the current climate science orthodoxy into one group. The interpretation of the observational science has been consistently over-egged to produce alarm. All real-world data over the past 20 years has shown the climate models to be exaggerating the likely impacts — if the models cannot account for the near term, why should I trust them in the long term?
I am most worried by the billions of pounds being misinvested and lost as a consequence. Look out to sea at the end of 2015 and see how many windmills are not turning and you will get my point: there are already 14,000 abandoned windmills onshore in the US. Premature technology deployment is thoroughly bad engineering, and my taxes are subsidising it against my will and professional judgment.
Professor Michael Kelly
Prince Philip Professor of Technology, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge
Source An Englishman’s Castle via “The Times“, subscription required
major hat tip to Bishop Hill
@Watt
doesn’t anyone find it odd that new turbines don’t just replace older non-functional ones?
No – investment tax credits, renewable energy credits, and other subsidies are what makes these “profitable.” they will only be rebuilt/replaced if there are more subsidies. The ones in CA and elsewhere are slowly getting replaced because CA has high subsidies for wind.
@jim
Removal and Restoration Costs in California: Who Will Pay? by Paul Gipe
(An edited version of the article which appeared in the Spring 1997 issue of WindStats Newsletter, Vol. 10, No. 2)
Every type of power plant has removal and decommissioning costs (coal, gas, nuclear) . Are these higher or lower than other types? The lifespan of a coal plant is about 30 years and parts continually need replaced, including turbines and boilers. New technology makes them more efficient. If you count the 14,000 original wind turbines since 1985 as “abandoned” then the US has “abandoned” a lot of coal, gas, and nuclear plants too. We have lots of mothballed coal, gas, and nuclear plants too, they are just less obviously littering the landscape.
I’m not defending wind,but this 14,000 number is one of those urban legends.
I am wondering, where the irony lies in this (that is, what is ironic here?)
Let me proffer that in Paul Gipe we have an individual who is more a ‘wind power specialist’ and historian as opposed to simply a political advocate/activist or PR front man.
There is probably not a more comprehensive collection of works on wind power over the last three decades than that collected by Paul. I think his objectifiable facts on the state and history of that industry (both the manufacture and use of wind power turbine equipment).are second to none. His expression and advocacy of wind power are not comprised of wild-eyed optimism and radicalism, although he has not met the burden of proof regarding economics for utility-scale wind generation systems.
Have you seen Paul’s webpage titled: Self-Guided Tour to the Wind Farms of the Tehachapi Pass (circa 1998-2001 time frame)?
A brief excerpt, and one can see he pulls no punches in describing what one can see on a tour:
Note that a description of the smallish “Carter 250” may be found in a document I linked in one of my prior posts that can be found by clicking on this link string.
.
dwb says:
February 29, 2012 at 6:45 am
The financial contortions from the Gore-Pelosi-Obama-DOE-EPA’s subsidies and rate prop of wind energy are even worse. As noted above, wind farm construction direct subsidies pay nothing for the short term (year-to-year) upkeep, repair, and maintenance of wind turbines. They pay nothing for the long-term (3 year and 7 year) outages and replacement of major parts and controllers (pumps, drive motors, gears, generator connectors, cleaning, open-and-inspect, troubleshooting, etc.) inside the cramped and dangerous cowlings where all parts have to be lifted 200 feet up in the air.
Rate subsidies only pay off-set (increased) electric rates to the wind farm owner IF the wind farm turbines are operating. This means that even short term repair periods are non-productive (non-profitable) between those 3 and 7 year longer outages. As a result, there is NO incentive to repair the things; and in fact, even disincentives. As far as their actual payback rates go to the owner, “build ’em, start ’em, and then run ’em till they burn up” is the government’s preferred rate structure! (Of course, this ensures that these democrat politicians get their campaign contributions and editorial mentions in the mainstream liberal extremist ABBCNNBCBS press corpse for being “green friendly” early in the election cycle. ten years later? “Who cares, I’m already elected right now.” )
I am now repairing conventional and nuclear power plants that my dad built in the mid and early 60’s and 70’s. Upgrading and replacing steam turbines and generators that were made in the 50’s as well. With only one or two exceptions nationwide, the only power plants being decommissioned and abandoned in today’s world are the coal powered plants that the EPA unilaterally outlawed by their “new and improved” CO2 and mercury limits this past year. A fifty year power plant life is not common, but not unusual either. A thrity year old power plant turbine is just a good target for a $2,000,000.00 to $10,000,000.00 outage and upgrade.
And that outage – costing 1/10th of a single wind farm producing 10 Meg’s of power only 20% of the time – will generate 25 to150 more Megawatts every minute of every day for the next 20 0years.
Singer has an article http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html and the comments are a good read.
Guns are a-blazing at the American Thinker coral.
Fred doesn’t mention that the recent changes haven’t been demonstrated to be anything other than ordinary.
Not my dog; I was responding to another poster; as you can read by various references and articles, overall the wind generation folks have not historically been tied/committed to any ‘decommission funding’ (except in a few rare cases where local law or Federal permits requried same).
I think I have provided sufficient background data that such that one might be able to adjudge whether 14,000 was an appropriate number, and if not what sort of adjustment up or down should be made. From an RF engineer’s point of view I would quantify it certainly within a range of 10 dB (yielding a range of 1,400 to 14,000), and even within 6 dB (3,500 – 14,000). A 3 dB range yields 7,000 to 14,000.
The post I made here above contains an estimate from 1988 of 1,000 machines in California alone being “[so] poorly designed or manufactured that they were unsalvageable”, Gipe estimates the number of the 1997 article as being 3,000, and this is out of “12,000 turbines of first generation designs” fielded ostensibly across the continent.
I don’t think the majority of persons considering the accuracy of that number has any comprehension of how small some of these early wind generators were in the early years … I would strongly recommend one might consult the reference at the link I cited earlier to gain some idea of the smaller animals that were actually installed in the first real ‘Wind Rush’ in the 1980’s …
.
Highly 7 says on February 28, 2012 at 6:27 am :
“————“
========
Wise words, I say – but then again – I am one of those “deniers” who does not believe that “climate-scientists” – of any ilk, have got it “quite right” yet.
And:
DirkH says on February 28, 2012 at 6:48 am :
“Higley, please take another look at the scales of the absorption spectrum graphs of N2 and O2. They have very narrow spikes or lines with an absorptivity a thousand times less than the ones of CO2 and H2O. They are irrelevant.”
======
So then DirkH, why do CO2 and H2O not absorb “Solar Radiation” (SR) in that particular spectrum? – I do hope we all know that the Earth’s surface stops and absorbs SR thus warming the surface.
Could it therefore have something to do with gases versus solids and liquids – perhaps?
The following from “Windpower”, by Christopher Gillis, bought at the National Windpower and Windmill Museum at Lubbock TX during a recent visit there.
Its forward by Nolan Clark claims that almost 15,000 windmills were installed in California alone between 1984 and 1986.
“Large” prototype windmills at that period of time built by NASA were as small as 100 KWatts. Worldwide, none were very large.
More telling details later in the book:
Page 55, “Between 1981 and 1983, US Windpower built the first 100 turbines in Altamont Pass …. By 1990, California’s wind farms contained more than 17,000 turbines, with ratings from 20 KWatts to 400 KWatts. Together these turbines produced more than 3 million megawatt hours of electricity…. All three companies [US Windpower, Fayette Manufacturing, and Wind Master] offered turbines rated at 50 KWatt each.”
Page 56. “Re-powering in California’s wind farms has taken off more so in recent years. Wintec Energy, which operates turbines on 1,200 acres in the Cocchella Valley north of Palm Springs, announced in 2007 a 3 billion to 4 billion dollar program to tear down the old machines and and install about 1,100 new turbines each separated by a quarter mile.”
So, yes, more than 14,000 old, worn out, scenery-polluting eyesores wasting taxpayer-sponsored time, material, labor, and capital could definitely have been ripped out. unfortunately, some are being replaced by even bigger wearing out, scenery-polluting eyesores wasting taxpayer-sponsored time, material, labor, and capital without producing any reliable energy at twice the price of conventional power.
More environmental damage and pollution from California’s un-regulated and poorly-maintained state-sponsored wind farms noted at the link above:
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/TehachapiTourGuide.html guide.
From above: jtom says:
February 28, 2012 at 8:27 pm
The source of the 14,000 abandoned turbines is Paul Gipe. His resume is here:
http://www.wind-works.org/giperesume.html
Spinning Turbines
If the wind is blowing, you will see a mass of spinning turbines upon entering the Tehachapi Valley from Bakersfield. There are more than 1,000 turbines visible from this vantage point and in good winds, most will be spinning. Unfortunately, not all will be operating. Some of those not spinning have been derelict for at least a decade. There is no law in Kern County that requires removal of broken or abandoned wind turbines. Zond (Enron) alone has dozens of such turbines that are derelict and these are clearly visible from Highway 58.
Over Oak Creek Pass
Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road crosses the Tehachapi Valley parallel to the ridge with the wind turbines, then turns and climbs over Oak Creek Pass. Just before the final ascent to the pass, the road passes a Bergey 1500 on the west (right) side. The battery-charging turbine is part of a wind and solar hybrid power system.
The summit of Oak Creek Pass affords spectacular views of the Mojave Desert, the Garlock Fault, and Cameron Ridge. On the left is Zond, on the right is CalWind. In the far distance is what was once SeaWest’s Mojave site with more than 1,000 wind turbines. Just below the summit on the north side is Mogul Energy’s 450 kW Mitsubishis.
On the east side of Cameron Road is Cameron Ridge. On top of Cameron Ridge are Florida Power & Lights NEG-Micon and Vestas turbines, and Coram/TaxVest’s Aeromans.
Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road leads past Oak Creek’s wind plant and out onto the desert.
In the Vicinity of Oak Creek
Near Oak Creek are two more or less defunct wind plants. On the east side is Zephyr where only four carcasses of turbines remain. On the west side is a field of modified Storm Masters, most inoperative and on the ground. The Zephyr site is the world’s most egregious example of the unnecessary environmental impact that can result from uncontrolled wind development. The gouges in the hillside are only now, after more than a decade, healing. The turbines were sold for scrap years ago. In the 1999 wind rush, Oak Creek installed several NEG-Micon turbines on this site.
To SeaWest
On the east side of Oak Creek Pass are extensive fields of Joshua Trees. These unusual plants are found in limited areas of the high desert, including the eastern flanks of the Tehachapi Mountains and the vicinity of Joshua Tree National Monument.
Oak Creek Rd. leaves Tehachapi-Willow Springs Rd. and travels eastbound toward the town of Mojave. After winding through a short canyon the road opens onto the Mojave Desert and the Mitsubishi turbines at a large wind plant once operated by SeaWest.
The SeaWest site at one time contained a mix of Mitsubishi, Micon, Danwin, and Nordtank turbines. Some of the early turbines have since been removed. Note the Mitsubishis’ direction of rotation. Of the 5,000 turbine in the Tehachapi-Mojave resource area only the Mitsubishis (660) and Wind-Matics rotate counterclockwise (viewed from upwind). The Danwins (clockwise rotation) are buried inside the Mitsubishi array and the difference in direction of rotation is easily discernible, if not jarring. In the 1999 wind rush, owners of the Mitsubishis removed some older turbines and installed new turbines on much taller towers. The developer substituted an awkward, non-uniform array for what was at one time the California wind industry’s most aesthetically pleasing wind plant. Since the discordant erection of the new turbines this array looks, unfortunately, like many of the other wind plants in the state.
To Zond
From SeaWest, Oak Creek Rd. westbound leads to Tehachapi-Willow Springs Rd. and back over Oak Creek Pass. Just before the freeway overcrossing is a frontage road, Jameson, that leads to Zond’s assembly building and good views of Zond’s wind wall as well as its large arrays of turbines. In early to mid May the slopes above the Zond buildings can be ablaze with bright orange poppies.
Wind Plant Maintenance Items to Note
Throughout the Tehachapi-Mojave area look for turbines without nose cones, turbines without nacelles (blown off and not replaced), oil leaking from blade-pitch seals, oil leaking from gearboxes, road cuts in steep terrain, erosion gullies, non-operating turbines, and “bone piles” of junk parts. One Zond bone pile of abandoned fiberglass blades is visible on the east side of Tehachapi-Willow Springs Rd. near Oak Creek Pass. (Kern County doesn’t permit on-ground disposal of fiberglass.) While touring wind farm sites look for blowing trash and litter (plastic bags, soft-drink cups, bottles, electrical connectors, scrap bits of metal, and so on). These all reflect management’s attention to maintenance and general housekeeping. At the better sites, you won’t see any of this.
Solomon Green (Feb. 28 at 9:03 am):
Thanks for taking the time to reply. You’ve raised some good questions. First off, that the IPCC is mute on the averaging period relates to a fatal error in the methodology of the IPCC’s inquiry into AGW. The error is to have failed to define this inquiry’s statistical population. If it were to exist, events drawn from this population and observed would provide the sole empirical basis for testing the IPCC climate models but there is no such population or sample. In lieu of these ingredients, the IPCC’s inquiry cannot have been a scientific inquiry for the models cannot have been statistically tested. The IPCC represents that its inquiry was scientific but this representation is false.
While a 30 year averaging period is canonical, the canonical period doesn’t have to be adopted by the IPCC’s inquiry. Were an averaging period to be identified by the IPCC, this would place a lower bound on the duration of a statistical event, for the duration can be no less than the averaging period. Thus, for example, if the averaging period were 30 years, the duration of an event could be no less than 30 years.
The duration of the events in the (thus far undefined) statistical population of the IPCC’s inquiry would be identical to the period over which the associated models predicted climate outcomes. As the duration is undefined, predictions cannot have been made. IPCC climatologists work around this lapse by designing their models to make “projections” rather than “predictions.”
By the way, contrary to your understanding, projections cannot be proved wrong. It is predictions that can be proved wrong but the IPCC models do not make them.
commieBob (Feb. 28, 2012 at 9:25 am):
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I plead innocent to your charge of reaching false conclusions through semantic tricks. The skill of the forecasts that are made by the IPCC climate models is undefined, for these models do not make forecasts. The “projections” which they do make are not examples of forecasts.
Good catch; Unfortunately, “Windpower”, by Christopher Gillis does not appear anywhere as/in a Google book preview …
.
Sorry if I get in the middle of this, but, what does this plot of incoming SR depict:
“Atmospheric Absorption and Transmission” – http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/spectrum.jpg
Fiugre title: “Absorption-transmission characteristics of cloud-free atmosphere shows gases responsible for EMR absorption as function of wavelength”
Gleaned from about the halfway point on this webpage: http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_energy_interact.html
.
DirkH (Feb. 28, 2012 at 9:31 am):
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I agree with you when you assert that a difference between a prediction and a projection is that only the former can be validated. However, I disagree with you when you assert that this is the only difference. There are numerous additional differences. For example, predictions have a one-to-one relationship with independent statistical events but projections have no such relationship.The complete set of independent statistical events, the so-called “statistical population,” does not exist for the IPCC’s inquiry into AGW. This being the case, it is impossible for the IPCC to have reached the high level of confidence that it claims to have reached in the reality of CAGW.
DBCooper (Feb. 28, 2012 at 10:29 am):
That’s about right.
Clive Best (Feb. 28, 2012 at 6:58 am):
Contrary to your impression, those colored lines in your article at http://clivebest.com/data/Poster.pdf aren’t predictions. They are projections. Predictions are falsifiable. Projections are not.
Jim says on February 29, 2012 at 10:30 am:
“- – – – – – – – – – what does this plot of incoming SR depict:
. . thermal infrared
. . – strong absorption by water vapor between 5-8um and 20um-1,000um (1cm)
. . – carbon dioxide absorbs 14-20um
. . – ozone 9-10um
. . . . (absorbed radiation heats the lower atmosphere)”
========
Are you really saying that the Sun is warming those gases by sending thermal IR radiation into the Atmosphere?
If that’s the case then I must admit I have misunderstood the whole thing. – The Sun is causing “Global warming” after all
That strategic edit by the paper, removing the statement that ‘climate always changes’, is unforgivable, IMHO.
It changes the whole tone of the ‘lead in’ from ‘of course ice ages come and go’ to one more like ‘of course CO2 is causing bad things’ instead.
That then shifts the rest of the letter from “critique of junk science” to “you guys are just soo devoted it’s a bit over the top”, at least, for me.
As soon as challenged, the Hokey Team & Assoc. are quick to take refuge in the “projections” claim. Then they (and their political masters and puppets) go right back to treating them as predictions. A cute trick! Authority without accountability; nice work if you can get it.
Brian H (March 4, 2012 at 9:21):
This phenomenon can profitably be viewed from the standpoint of logic. Conflation of the idea referenced by “projection” and the idea referenced by “prediction” creates the opportunity for the construction of specious proofs of conclusions that are false or unproved. Each such “proof” employs negation of Aristotle’s law of non contradiction as a false premise to a specious argument. The IPCC employs this technique in the argument that it makes for CAGW in AR4.
Terry Oldberg says:
March 4, 2012 at 10:06 am
Yeah, old A. had no patience with BBB (BS Baffles Brains). He would have laughed at the Trenberth Twist!