Gone with the wind: England's most important coastline

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

I shall not cease from mental fight,

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,

Till we have built Jerusalem

In England’s green and pleasant land.

Thus William Blake, in the coda of the mystical poem that the nation belts out at full if not always tuneful volume on the Last Night of the Proms at the Albert Hall every summer.

England’s g. and p. l. is not what it was when Blake wrote about it. The place is being expensively carpeted with ugly, medieval, lo-tech wind farms.

The governing class still likes windmills. It is making a fortune out of them, at everyone else’s expense. 

The Left support windmills because the developers quietly give their parties – “Labor”, the “Liberal” “Democrats”, and the “Greens”, in order of Leftness – huge kickbacks from the massive State subsidies they get.

The center-Left “Conservatives” like them because, like “Dave” Cameron’s pa-in-law, the wind farms are profitably built on their vast estates.

clip_image002

The unspeakable “Tim” Yeo, “Conservative” chairman of the Commons Environment Committee, who came off very much second-best in a tussle with Professor Dick Lindzen at a recent hearing, makes around $150,000 a year (in addition to his fat Parliamentary salary and allowances of $1 million a year) from various soi-disant “renewable” energy boondoggles subsidized by taxpayers.

Yeo’s committee has acted disgracefully, suppressing or sneering at any testimony (such as that from Professor Lindzen) that threatens’ its members’ personal fortunes and the immense donations to their parties from people whom their insane climate policies have made into multi-millionaires.

Johnny Taxpayer, who pays £30 billion a year for the mad climate policies that represent the biggest transfer of power and wealth in human history from the little guy to the fat cat, is heartily sick of wind farms.

Half of all zoning consents applied for by greedy developers supported by members of parliament whose parties hope to profiteer from wind farms are now being turned down, even though the government desperately wants local authorities to grant them because the Brussels junta, whom we do not elect, requires us to generate a fifth of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020.

The proposal that bids fair to bring the entire tottering house of cards crashing down is just about to be submitted for zoning consent.

clip_image004

Britain’s most important coastline – the Jurassic world-heritage coast in Dorset – is about to be ruined irretrievably by the Navitus Bay Wind Array, 194 wind turbines almost 600 feet high, covering six square miles, less than 9 miles out to sea.

The swept area of each turbine is 200,000 square feet. Yet the mean output of 4000 acres of vast 5 MW wind turbines, even at the absurdly optimistic 35% capacity factor claimed by the developers, will be just 339.5 MW. A single modern 4 GW coal-fired power station produces ten times as much output.

clip_image006

Figure 2a. The Navitus array, seen from Durlston Head lighthouse on the Jurassic Coast, will span almost 45 degrees of arc (nearly the entire field of view here).

clip_image008

Figure 3. The sheer size of the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Array wind farm is disproportionate to and intrusive upon the fragile and important landscape of the area. The illustration, kindly supplied by the Poole and Christchurch Bays Association, shows the scale of a 5 MW and a 7 MW turbine set against the Needles Light, one of Britain’s most-loved landmarks (they will not, of course, be this close to the coast). The array of 194 turbines each 581 feet high and sweeping an area of 200,000 square feet will be within 11 miles of the Needles. The UK Government’s minimum offshore distance for wind farms is 12 miles. The wind farms will tower over the neighboring cliffs.

clip_image010

clip_image012

The pathetic 339.5 MW output of this monstrous boondoggle is less than 0.8% of the 43.2 GW mean total UK load. Electricity accounts for 33% of UK CO2 emissions, which, at 142.6 MtC (522 Mt CO2) in 2008, represented 1.72% of global CO2 emissions.

Therefore, Navitus Bay will abate 0.0045% of global CO2 emissions. The annual subsidy for 339.5 MW over 8766 hours, at 1.8 times the Renewable Obligation Certificate price of $82.80 (£46), will be $444 million, or $2.22 bn over five years. The subsidy regime is too uncertain for reliable costing thereafter.

The subsidy is part-paid-for by a Climate Change Levy of about $0.09 kWh–1 on non-exempt consumers of electricity, and a Carbon Price Floor. These two levies brought in about £700 million ($1.2 bn) in 2013. The 2.975 TWh projected to be generated annually by Navitus Bay is equivalent to 7.235% of the 41.132 TWh generated from the renewables subsidized by the levies.

Accordingly, some $87 million of the annual cost of the levies would be attributable to the Navitus Bay project and, as a market distortion intended to favor renewables at the expense of fossil-fueled generation, is properly treated as additional to the subsidy, so that the five-year gross cost of the project is $22.65 billion, and that is before taking account of the cost of interconnection to the national power grid.

Armed with this information, we can determine whether Navitus Bay will make a useful contribution to cutting global CO2 emissions.

Navitus Bay is to come onstream by 2021. We shall study the first five years of the project, from 2021-2025. Beyond that period, the subsidy regime is uncertain.

CO2 concentration, on business as usual, will increase by 11 pmv from from 412 to 423 ppmv over the five years. Of this 11 ppmv, the 0.0045% abated by Navitus Bay represents 0.0005 ppmv.

The global CO2 forcing abated by Navitus Bay over the period, using the CO2 forcing equation, is 5.25 ln(423/422.9995), or 0.000006 W m–2.

The fraction of global warming abated is 0.000006 W m–2 multiplied by the five-year Planck sensitivity parameter 0.323 K W–1 m2, or 0.000002 Cº. That is approximately 2 millionths of a degree.

The unit mitigation cost, which is the cost of mitigating 1 Cº of global warming by measures of equivalent unit cost worldwide, is the five-year subsidy of £2.65 bn divided by the 0.000002 Cº global warming abated by Navitus Bay over the five-year period, or a mere $1.3 quadrillion.

The global total mitigation cost, which is the cost of mitigating the 0.08 Cº global warming that IPCC (2013) projects will occur over the five year period of study, is 0.08 Cº mutiplied by the unit mitigation cost of £1.3 quadrillion. That gives $109 trillion, which is $15,560 per head of global population or, as a percentage of projected global GDP of $436 trillion, 25%.

The benefit-cost ratio, assuming that adapting to 1 Cº unmitigated global warming over the 21st century would cost 1% of GDP, broadly consistent with Stern (2006) and IPCC (2013) on the assumption that little warming occurs, is 25.

It is 25 times costlier to address global warming with mitigation projects such as Navitus Bay than to allow the projected global warming to occur and meet the costs and damages of adapting to its consequences.

The “Greens” in the Bournemouth area, which will have its tourism industry wrecked by the medieval mechanical triffids visible in the bay less than 12 miles away, are of course backing this environment-destroying project because they, too, benefit from generous handouts from “renewable”-energy corporations.

Never mind the national finances. Never mind the taxpayers’ finances. Never mind the immense environmental damage the wind array will cause. Never mind the world heritage status of the Jurassic coast. Never mind the birds that will be killed. The Greens will profit, and – communists though they be – they are now the most rapacious capitalists on the planet, when it comes to their own bank balances.

Their argument in favor of this nonsensical scheme, which will be visible from the three major centers of Poole, Bournemouth, and Christchurch, as well as from the Needles, one of Britain’s best-loved landmarks and a haven for sailors, and from Durlston Head on the Jurassic Coast itself, is that almost 1.3 million tons of CO2 a year will not be emitted thanks to the turbines.

The calculations we did earlier, showing that it would be 25 times costlier to make global warming go away with offshore wind farms than to let the warming happen and adapt to it, were done on so generous a basis that we assumed it was true.

But it wasn’t true. The problem is that the wind, even offshore, is so fickle that the array will only generate electricity a third of the time. So just as much fossil-fueled capacity as before has to be kept onstream and spinning in case the wind drops. But instead of spinning at full and efficient capacity, it is kept spinning in a fashion so inefficient that there is no CO2 saving from the average wind farm at all.

On this true basis, it is infinitely costlier to make global warming go away with wind farms than to let it happen, because wind farms actually add to CO2 emissions when all is said and done.

The developers’ claims, parroted by the Greens, about the amount of CO2 emissions that the wind farm will “save” are entirely without foundation, as are their claims that the wind farm will help to meet the UK’s CO2 emissions targets laid down by our unelected masters in Brussels. The array, like all wind farms, will actually increase our CO2 emissions.

But it’s going to create jobs, right? The developers’ website proudly says there will be – wait for it – 140 permanent jobs keeping the turbines running. At a project subsidy of $0.53 bn a year, that works out at getting on for $4 million per job, per year.

The developers also claim the project will increase the UK’s “energy security”. Er, no, it won’t. There will be many tons of extremely scarce and expensive neodymium in each windmill, and that comes almost entirely from China, at enormous environmental cost in the shape of acid pollution of the water table for thousands of square miles via the process to leach the neodymium out from the ore. Not that you’ll hear much from the Greens about that. Wonder why not.

And how is the Royal Navy, with more admirals than rubber ducks, going to defend these and other offshore wind farms against sabotage? Security? Schmecurity.

Finally, the developers claim – and this is heroically insane – that the project will “stabilize electricity prices for the future”. Try telling that to the average energy user, who is paying at least twice what he was paying for electricity just a few years ago. A substantial fraction of the increase is attributable to subsidies for wind farms.

You would be forgiven for thinking that this proposal, like the regime of subsidy that has attracted it, is bonkers. So it is – and that is how it is going to be stopped.

Zoning consents for large projects like Navitus Bay have been taken out of the hands of local authorities. Too many of them, elected by the voters who might have to live next to these monstrous arrays, were saying No when Ministers and civil servants could only profiteer if they said Yes.

So Ministers now decide the bigger proposals themselves – or, at least, a vast bureaucracy decides on Ministers’ behalf. However, it is a Ministerial decision, and it is accordingly subject to judicial review in the Administrative Court in London.

The law is clear. If a decision is irrational, it is unlawful. Ministers are given very wide discretion, but, if a Minister takes a decision which, coldly dissected by a court, makes no sense whatsoever because no reasonable or sane Minister could possibly have taken it, the court is obliged to set that decision aside.

Watch this space. Navitus Bay could well prove to be the straw that broke the camel’s back. Show Fig. 1 to a court and it will start to question very carefully everything said by the developers, the Greens, and the government. And, as with the case against Al Gore’s movie in 2007, once the court starts to ask questions there is nowhere for the Forces of Darkness to hide.

Some 50 residents’ associations have already banded together to fight this poisonous scheme. Let us hope they fight it all the way, and let us hope they win. Otherwise, we shall all be singing a new version of Jerusalem:

… till Socialism’s builded here

In England’s Green, unpleasant land.

clip_image014

Figure 6. Views of the Jurassic World Heritage Coast, as it is for now. Enjoy it while you can.

clip_image015

Figure 7. The last Great Bustard in the Spanish province of Cadiz, killed by a wind farm.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Titan28

The most damning number here is the output, the fact that a single modern 4 GW coal-fired plant produces TEN TIMES as much electricity, and on a consistent basis, as these towering inefficient monstrosities. As one who loves the irreplaceable Dorset coast, and its staggering windswept beauty, ach. This is almost evil. Good work, Lord Monckton.

clipe

bushbunny

Well done Lord Monckton. Maybe when they break down people will realise what a waste of money they are, but farmers in Australia are paid 15,000 dollars a year to rent the land from them. Some say, No way. Others, why not.

I couldn’t agree with Christopher!

A masterpiece, M’Lord! Many, many thanks!

Dr Burns

Excellent Lord Monkton. Perhaps you could have mentioned the role of the supplier. GE?
” … global greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise, putting the world on track for overshooting the 2ºC “safe” target and ending up in a 4ºC world.”
http://www.gecitizenship.com/blog/2013/01/the-great-climate-disconnect/

Jeff Alberts

I didn’t see any mention of Hiroshima Bombs in there. How can you possibly hope to gain any traction without that??
Is /sarc really necessary?

Jeff L

Jurassic heritage coast : FWIW …. Looks like 2 of the 3 picture are actually Cretaceous chalk outcrops (which does outcrop within the Jurassic heritage coast … even though it is younger strata)

milodonharlani

Speaking of Blake, how about the boffo finish of “Auguries of Innocence”?
Every night and every morn
Some to misery are born,
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night.
We are led to believe a lie
When we see not thro’ the eye,
Which was born in a night to perish in a night,
When the soul slept in beams of light.
God appears, and God is light,
To those poor souls who dwell in night;
But does a human form display
To those who dwell in realms of day.
CACA advocates want to keep those poor souls born into night in the dark & freezing.

norah4you

I take it that there is many scholars and others never taking themselves time to have seen Time Team on TV. Thus they aren’t aware that this isn’t a modern phenomena but been going at least the last 2000 years. Phenomena is called wind- and wave erosion and that’s the way erosion “work” on grounds such as it is in described area.

Louis

If they put a screen made of something like chicken wire around the wind turbines to protect birds, would it have too much of a negative impact on efficiency?

john robertson

Best scheme yet for robbing the many to enrich the well connected few.
CAGW is an intelligence test.

Pamela Gray

The modern version of the Tower of Babel. A good friend of mine says that steel cutters will have jobs for decades dismantling those things for scrap.

Tim Walker

Thank you. I hope that sanity prevails.

Louis,they are already inefficient,so talking about efficiency with windmills is wrong. They would become more inefficient.

redress

Its worth reading the whole article. For once BJORN LOMBORG is talking sense, and is in step with Lord Monkton
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/renewables-pave-path-to-poverty/story-fni1hfs5-1226898730123#

TRM

“because the Brussels junta, whom we do not elect, requires us to generate a fifth of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020.”
Beat them with an end run. Have thorium declared renewable. It is every bit as renewable as the rare earth elements and steel required for wind turbines. 🙂

milodonharlani

Pamela Gray says:
April 28, 2014 at 8:01 pm
I live in the midst of the largest wind farm area on earth, as you live near it. Just last night I asked kith & kin (one of each) what the deal was for dismantling the many Chinese-made windmills on their land. The roads & concrete pads apparently are their worry. During construction a new city sprang up overnight near the breaks on the plateau above the Walla Walla Valley, in the Vansickle Hills where my sheep-herding Scottish immigrant great-grandfather & Scots-Irish Tennessee great-grandmother, dispossessed by the Civil War, kept a line shack, 1870 to 1930. The sheep ate down the native bunchgrass, which made busting the sod to plant wheat easier. The insect pest-eating bird & bat-massacring blades of death will themselves go down to dusty death when & if Congress ever wises up & stops the subsidies. Even those who have so richly benefited from this insanity know it’s a scam.

Sceptical Sam

The case for never building theses monstrosities is overwhelming. However, pointing out the economic and financial stupidity is only part of it; and on its own is unlikely to stop them.
The better (but harder way) is to find the corruption; name the names. Find the brown paper bags stuffed with Euros. Find the bank accounts. Find the sexual blackmail. Find the emails and the phone calls. Do what the ICAC is doing to the corrupt politicians and developers in NSW. Put them in gaol.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s3993759.htm
And if they have the UK equivalent stitched up with their comrades?
Well then, go around it. DIY. If ever a hacker were needed, it is now. If ever a citizen controlled anti-corruption fund were needed, it is now. If ever a strong alliance of all those wanting to stop this corrupt behaviour is needed, it is now. If ever an insider (or two) were needed, it is now.
Knock Navitus over and all the rest will be easy.

gregole

If Man-Made CO2 is a problem:
“All the solar panels and wind turbines in the world (at a taxpayer cost of $60 billion annually) have cut less CO2 emissions than US fracking.”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/index.html#/v/3481291294001
I am yet to be convinced by the evidence that Man-Made CO2 does much of anything measurable other than greening the earth. So-called damage from CO2 has yet to be demonstrated; it is 100% speculation.
Wind farms however, are greatly damaging. They waste public resources that could be better directed. They are a comparatively unreliable source of electricity. They are in danger of being destroyed by the elements and as such are a safety hazard. They are hazardous to maintain. They are a landscape blight and kill great numbers of wildlife – birds and bats in particular. That venal, mendacious individuals in positions of power take advantage of us is a galling injustice. They are our Easter Island Moas. Bizarre monuments to our blind, primitive, fears of the future. Utter folly.
Some future day, we humans will look back on the rusted out wreckage of these windmill monstrosities and wonder how we could have gone so far astray from the path of gentle reason.

The twelve mile suggested distance from shore sounds to be a ‘curvature or the Earth’ distance to the horizon. Someone believed, perhaps falsely, that the turbines would be over the horizon?
Given the sheer height of the death blade farms they will be quite visible. The entire death blade farm will likely be visible; especially from the tops of those cliffs.
Then there is how sound waves happily bounce their way through the atmosphere; somehow I doubt the ocean dissipates sound. Perhaps visitors to the coast will be able to hear the echo bouncing back from the cliffs?
Great article Lord Monckton!

milodonharlani

Sceptical Sam says:
April 28, 2014 at 8:23 pm
Follow the money in the US, too. The companies cashing in on windmill subsidies hire family members of politically well connected figures, besides giving generously to campaign coffers, on which their rate of return is astronomical, thanks to taxpayers.

Mike McMillan

Does anyone know the embodied energy (used in manufacture and construction) of these things?

Martin C

Lord Monckton,
. . . what a time for a ‘Guy Fawkes type’ to go after those clowns ( . . whether they be any one in Parliament, or the ‘Greens’ or ANYONE who would support this garbage) ; or even the beginnings of the construction itself of these monstrosities if they were to begin . . .
( . .OH, not that I am trying to make it sound like I would support what I just wrote . . . just idle thoughts that run through my head when I read about things like this . . 🙂 🙂 )
I have been to Somerset and Dorset several years ago (when working with Westland in Yeovil); I went sight seeing down to the coast and that area, and saw how beautiful it is.
It would be a TRAVESTY for this project to continue. I hope the fight continues to stop this waste of money and destruction of that beautiful and scenic coastline, and the views out over the ocean.
CHEERS, from Arizona.

Dr C

Sorry, Mr. Monckton… They can be ugly. They can be Medieval. But they can’t be both.

Lord M,
You may recall that I tried to give you a $50,000,000 Zimbabwe bank note at the Heartland conference, but you one-upped me by pulling out your $100 million Zim note.
You trumped me! ☺
No doubt that is how you get a leg up on all the alarmists here.
Good article as usual, BTW…

“If they put a screen made of something like chicken wire around the wind turbines to protect birds, would it have too much of a negative impact on efficiency?”
There is a counterintuitive property of pumps, and a windmill is essentially a reverse pump, that they have uber powers on one side and are hopelessly wimpy on the other. I first learned this in my garden sprayer, a silly thing you pump up to spray roundup or stain etc. Being an irascible guy I get really annoyed when the inevitable ubiquitous floss clogs up the tip. I tried enclosing the dip tube in a screen to prevent this. the damned thing would not spray at all until I removed it…

pat

28 April: NRDC: Peter Lehner’s Blog: Why Do We Need to Curb Climate Change? Watch This Video
What does climate change look like? Everyone has a different answer. To a Texas rancher, it’s the drought that’s starving his cattle. To a worried mother in New York City, it’s the stultifying heat wave that’s setting off her child’s asthma. To an Iowa farmer, it’s hundreds of acres of unplanted fields, either withered by drought or flooded by heavy rains. To a New Jersey homeowner, it’s the storm that has destroyed her seaside community.
VIDEO: THIS IS WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE LOOKS LIKE 3.0
Every year since 2010, NRDC has encapsulated the year’s climate change impacts into a 2-minute video. Every year, this task becomes more challenging, as more communities in America and worldwide feel the devastating impacts of climate change. This past year was no exception…
Speak out and demand strong limits on carbon pollution from power plants. (LINKS TO NRDC LETTER TO SEND TO EPA)
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/why_do_we_need_to_curb_climate.html

dudleyhorscroft

The disappearing coast – remember Dunwich, Old Kilnsea and Eccles (him?) and the Isle of Goodwin. English towns and countryside swollen beneath the sea.

pat

25 April: Reuters: UN’s carbon role questioned as $200 mln cash pile sits idle
By Susanna Twidale and Ben Garside
The U.N. body tasked with channelling hundreds of billions of dollars to cutting emissions is under growing scrutiny as its once booming investment programme dries up, leaving most of its funds unspent while other climate initiatives are short of cash…
From 2003, developers flocked to register projects such as destroying heat-trapping waste gases at Chinese chemical plants or installing hydroelectric power stations in Brazil, and made huge profits by selling the resulting carbon credits for up to 22 euros ($30.40) a tonne in 2008.
But interest has waned while countries wrangled over setting new emission goals under the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), hammering credit prices down to unprofitable levels below 0.20 euros…
But with such a bleak outlook, some observers are calling on the CDM to drastically scale back its Bonn-based operations and want much of its near-$200 million of cash pile spent elsewhere.
“Having staff sit in Bonn and slowly draw down the surplus in salary is not a good use of these human and financial resources,” said Anne Arquit Niederberger, a consultant who has worked on CDM projects and was a Swiss negotiator at U.N. climate talks when the mechanism was drawn up in the 1990s…
***Its accounts show almost half of the current annual budget of $32.9 million is to pay staff, which still number around 150 despite a massive drop-off in new projects seeking registration…
U.N. data shows just 3 projects a month were registered on average this year, against 268 a month at the peak of activity in 2012. This means a staff of 10-20 people would be sufficient, said Axel Michaelowa, a University of Zurich climate policy academic and founding partner of consultancy Perspectives.
Michaelowa, who was seconded to the CDM during its busier periods, said surplus cash could be used to prop up the market by buying credits or develop new carbon market mechanisms earmarked to feature in a new climate deal
A CDM spokesman said the board had no current plans to cut employees but was conducting regular reviews of its operations.
The board is also trying to drum up demand for the credits by promoting them for uses other than meeting Kyoto targets…
While the CDM has enough money to see it through several years, a separate Kyoto Protocol programme, the Adaptation Fund, is struggling to fulfil its aims of helping the world’s poorest nations cope with the effects of climate change.
Governments agreed to help finance the fund with a 2 percent levy on CDM credits issued for projects such as building sea defences or developing drought resistant farming techniques.
But the plummeting value of the credits has hit the Fund’s coffers, with projects only getting the go-ahead last year after several west European nations donated 54 million euros…
Developed countries have agreed to mobilise $100 billion a year by 2020 to poorer nations, but the Green Climate Fund launched to help meet that goal had received donations of just $34 million by the end of 2013.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/25/un-carbon-idUKL6N0NH2FX20140425

pat

29 April: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: They’re Not Sure What ‘Climate Finance’ Is But Say We Need a Ton of it
***The primitive state of climate finance — call it cli-fi (not to be confused with ‘climate fiction’)*** — is the focus of the very last chapter of the most recent 1,000-plus-page report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which came out this month…
The best estimate is that on average more than $360 billion a year qualifies as cli-fi, most of that going toward renewable power. It’s hard to say what the target number should be, or if we need one. Business-focused environmentalists are asking for a “clean trillion,” almost a tripling of the IPCC estimate.
Complicating assessments of how climate finance is doing is a lack of agreement about what it is. “Knowledge gaps are substantial” in research and “there are no agreed definitions for climate investment and climate finance,” the IPCC writes…
Huge potential lies in state and local bonds, which have financed public infrastructure for a century of roads, bridges and hospitals for a century, according to a new report from the Brookings Institution. “Green bonds” would extend public financing to renewable energy projects, which today “rely upon an old fashioned and anachronistic form of financing that is different than how other parts of the economy are financed,” Richard Kauffman, New York State’s top energy advisor, has written.
Climate scientists have spent a generation tracking the flow of carbon, water and the other necessities of life all through the biosphere. The IPCC’s authors — as a proxy for the research community — are just starting to “follow the money” as it sloshes around, too.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-28/they-re-not-sure-what-climate-finance-is-but-say-we-need-a-ton-of-it.html

F. Ross

Walter Horsting (@WalterHorsting) says:
April 28, 2014 at 7:27 pm
I couldn’t agree with Christopher!

Don’t be coy; please tell us why you cannot agree. Or did you inadvertantly omit a couple of words?

thingadonta

why worry about costs and efficiency when its the right thing to do?

John F. Hultquist

I generally agree with the theme of the post except for this peripheral comment: “There will be many tons of extremely scarce and expensive neodymium …
This “many tons” aspect is likely wrong but if you choose to include it you might check the specifications, because
Neodymium is commonly used as part of a Neodymium-Iron-Boron alloy (Nd2Fe14B) which, thanks to its tetragonal crystal structure, is used to make the most powerful magnets in the world.
http://min-eng.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-real-cost-of-using-neodymium-in.html
It appears that less than 1/7 of the density of these magnets is provided by the Neodymium and large turbines contain about 2 tons of the alloy. Obviously this is not an area of expertize for me – so can someone confirm?
The point is that if the theme of the essay is correct – don’t exaggerate on a peripheral item that can be checked.

GeeJam

For eIght years, five months and six days, the PME on my desk is still rocking back and forth all on its own. No batteries. No fuel. No emissions. Just keeps going. About the size of a shoebox, I made it out of Lego to see if my theory of perpetual motion would work. And it has. You don’t need to wind it up, just apply a little drop of WD40 to the tiny cogs now and then. It just keeps going and going and going. Sadly, despite repeated requests for $0.53 bn funding, nobody wants to buy my invention – because they’ve already spent their $0.53 bn (that they had) on worse-than-useless wind turbines.
Thank you Lord Monkton. Brilliant as ever.

asybot

Dr C says:
April 28, 2014 at 9:07 pm
Sorry, Mr. Monckton… They can be ugly. They can be Medieval. But they can’t be both.
Mr . C:
You are wrong..
They are are ugly ( not “can be ugly”, just try and imagine just one across the street from your house at 3 AM when finally the wind blows.
They are also medieval ( Windmills have been around for even longer than most people realize.
And the third ? The windmills built all over the place those days were way more effective. They did a lot more than create ” Green Energy”. They pumped water , they ground grains and so made bread. And they actually even created energy (as we know it today) if you count in the work load that was eased by them, even being used as hauling materials..

John F. Hultquist

redress at 8:14 provides a link to an essay in “theaustralian” but the link has problems. Going directly to the paper’s web site and hunting can get you to a place where you get 2 paragraphs and a request to Log In or subscribe. There are other similar things available – search.

Goldie

Satanic mills indeed!
I, like many, learned my geology on the Jurassic Coast. One academic used to award a bottle of red wine to the first student to identify the natural oil seep that occurs near there. Good times.
I wonder if life will still be worth living if the Eco-fascists are allowed to have their way like this. It makes me sad.

Robert of Ott awa

This is flat in the middle of a major shipping channel!

all tax is a stupidity tax that only those without accountants pay.
I have no problem with any kind of windmill but the policies have always chosen the worst outcome for the tax payer [offshore wind] while the equestrian class pocket the money on land already subsidised by 4 billion a year. UK Land prices are going up faster than property prices in central london? Why? Because its a nice earner because of the subsidy it attracts. If you have £12000 you lose the state benefits if you have 12000 acres you get them which is a perverse joke that Dickens would have written about.
As to who owns britain then its still the inner empire of role gamers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328270/A-Britain-STILL-belongs-aristocracy.html
to be a monarch you have to adopt a narrative that makes others common which is a belittling apartheid style language designed to humiliate and ‘keep people in their place’ which is so embeded in uk society that even our elected representatives are called ‘commoners’ who go to a ‘House of Commons’. My main objection to those who role game and pretend they are royal is the divisive impact their apartheid narrative has on society and they way that narrative is used to transfer wealth from the many to the few.

Slight correction. The good lord says “the Brussels junta, whom we do not elect, requires us to generate a fifth of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020”. In fact our useless ex-PM Tony Blair signed up to an EU target of 15% of our energy from renewables by 2020 (he was expected by his advisers to sign for 15% of our electricity from renewables by 2020, but like most politicians, he doesn’t know the difference between energy and electricity). Because we can’t get much heat or transport fuel from renewables, in order to meet the 15% target, the Government decided we needed to get about 35% of our electricity from renewables. Idiots all of them.
Anyway, we fought off the even bigger and more useless proposed wind farm off the north Devon coast (the so-called Atlantic Array) and we’ll do the same to the proposed Navitus Bay Wind ‘Park’ off the Dorset coast. We won’t let the bar stewards get us down.

Village Idiot

“Britain’s most important coastline – the Jurassic world-heritage coast in Dorset – is about to be ruined irretrievably by the Navitus Bay Wind Array”
“irretrievably” – think not, Sir Christopher. Fits in well with the emotive language though.
Now we wouldn’t want to see the Market distorted by subsidies would we?
“The OECD estimates that the UK fossil fuel industry received £4.3 billion of support from government tax breaks and assistance toward infrastructure development in 2011.”
I imagine you would think it ‘prudent’ all these resources thrown into preparing for the next ice age?
“We are indeed overdue for another Ice Age, though we cannot stay when or even whether it will occur because we do not know exactly what triggers Ice Ages. However, according to the ice-core records the transition is more likely than not to be abrupt. At present we are entirely unprepared, which seems imprudent.”
“And all the steps we are taking to try to make global warming go away are exactly the wrong steps to be taking as we prepare for the next Ice Age.”
“billions will die, for we are entirely unprepared.”
Of course, you can make a retraction – we’re generous like that here in the Village

pat

redress –
EVERYONE SHOULD READ THE BJORN LOMBORG PIECE – THE LINK IS WORKING FOR ME.
this is the kind of hypocrisy that will destroy the CAGW myth:
Lomborg: Yet funding new coal-fired power plants in both countries (Pakistan & South Africa) has been widely opposed by well-meaning Westerners and governments…
In the next two years, Germany will build 10 coal-fired power plants…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/renewables-pave-path-to-poverty/story-fni1hfs5-1226898730123#

Christopher Hanley

‘Yet the mean output of 4000 acres of vast 5 MW wind turbines, even at the absurdly optimistic 35% capacity factor claimed by the developers, will be just 339.5 MW …’
===================================
It would make more sense to issue each of the 20 million or so households in Britain one of these http://windstreampower.com/.
It would keep the nation fit, pensioners warm, and help to fight climate change™ while being heaps of fun for the all the family.
On the other hand, for the civil service one could be installed under every desk with a mandated daily output specified, the current value of any shortfalls deducted from the idler’s pension.
I watched that committee hearing; I was amazed, as a non-Brit, by Yeo’s disrespectful demeanour towards an invited guest of Professor Lindzen’s standing.

farmerbraun

O/T I know but can anyone help me out with a quote from WG1 here. I may be wrong but I was quite sure that it didn’t say this, or anything even vaguely resembling it.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/lip-service-its-all-climate-action-ever-gets-from-key-co/#comment-42371

richardscourtney

Jeff L:
The mis-named ‘Jurassic Coast’ is one of the greatest wonders in the world, but your post says you do not know why.
At April 28, 2014 at 7:46 pm you write

Jurassic heritage coast : FWIW …. Looks like 2 of the 3 picture are actually Cretaceous chalk outcrops (which does outcrop within the Jurassic heritage coast … even though it is younger strata)

The ‘Jurassic Coast’ stretches from Exmouth in the West to The Needles in the East. And its geology changes from Devonian in the West to Cretaceous in the East.
The land was created in layers )i.e. strata) which formed on top of each other as time passed. Then in Southern England the land tilted-over such that the layers which had formed as layers on top of each other became layers beside each other. After that the English Channel cut through the land so the resulting cliffs formed to expose the individual strata.
The result is the ‘Jurassic Coast’ which is like a text-book diagram of geological strata over time but consists of real strata.
So, the history of the planet rolls past as one travels along the ‘Jurassic Coast’ in a boat. And the ‘Jurassic Coast’ provides a wealth of fossils from the Devonian to the Cretaceous periods.
The White Cliffs of Dover are white (not green) because the sea erodes the land. Each storm exposes new cliff surface, and the resulting land fall provides fossil-rich material at the base of the cliff. Anybody who knows how to look can find fossils along the ‘Jurassic Coast’ especially after a storm, and fossil-hunting is a good day out for all the family: I like ammonites so my fire-place is decorated with some that I have collected.
Richard

michel

The issue of judicial review is more complicated in the UK than the article suggests. To be reviewable, a decision has to be ‘Wednesbury unreasonable’. You can look up the Wednesbury case. A quick summary would be that the decision, to be reviewable, has to be so unreasonable that no rational public authority would have made it. That is a very, very high standard indeed.
There’s no doubt in most of our minds that UK energy policy is idiotic, and probably that much of its motivation is the profit of the alternative energy lobby and industry. However, to prove to the satisfaction that no rational public authority would have endorsed this particular scheme? Its going to be a very tough one. And a very expensive one.

The monetary amounts here that may be lost a la Germanys unfolding Green electricity disaster are indeed staggering and eventually the piper must be paid.
The likely outcome?
Deep economic decline over many decades destined to touch all sectors. One imagines this will be deemed intolerable and so there is reason to fear the cure.

climatereason

UK energy policy is stupid beyond belief (google Drax wood chippings )
It is also highly expensive and reliant on ancient technologies that don’t work (wind) or modern ones (solar) that are inappropriate to our latitude.
As far as wind goes there are many of the great and the good making a lot of money from the generous subsidies. This needs to be better exposed in the UK MSM.
The Jurassic coast is extremely beautiful. It lies adjacent to some of the wealthiest and best poliotically connected towns in the UK. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
Of course, the most obvious solution to our energy needs (apart from ones such as coal or nuclear) is waves/tidal. Britain is an island with nowhere more than 70 miles from the coast.
tonyb

On the North Norfolk coast is the Sheringham Shoal. Just as much of an eyesore, and emotionally a barrier to what was a clear run from the coast to the North pole. I think we can expect many more of these before they’re finally declared useless, but at least in UK now we’re unlikely to have many more land-based windfarms inflicted on us.