Saturday Silliness – wind turbine photo of the year

From the “fire and ice” department, Craig Kelly writes on Facebook

de-icing-wind-turbine

The entire rationale for wind turbines is to stop global warming by reducing the amount of CO2 being returned to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

In the attached picture, recently taken in Sweden, freezing cold weather has caused the rotor blades of a wind turbine to ice up bringing the blades to a complete stop.

To fix the “problem” a helicopter is employed (burning aviation fuel) to spray hot water (which is heated in the frigid temperatures using a truck equipped with a 260 kW oil burner) on the blades of the turbine to de-ice them.

The aviation fuel, the diesel for the truck, and the oil burned to heat the water, could produce more electricity (at the right time to meet demand) than the unfrozen wind turbine could ever produce. (Before it freezes up again).

The attached picture is a metaphor of the complete insanity of the climate change debate.

In decades to come this one photo alone with sum up an era of stupidity, when rational thought, logic and commonsense was abandoned and immense wealth and resources needlessly sacrificed.

3.4 27 votes
Article Rating
483 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
January 23, 2016 3:00 pm

Plus I doubt it is even possible to get that thing de-iced enough that it will be in sufficient balance to not tear itself apart if the wind picks up.

Reply to  Alec Rawls
January 23, 2016 4:37 pm

so why install a turbine without blade warmers? run some wires inside the blades as they are being manufactured, and then use power from the grid to keep the blades warm until there is enough wind to power the blade heaters.
Who knows, if you say for example install 1000 turbines, you could probably advertise – “Produces enough power to heat 1000 turbines”.

Editor
Reply to  ferdberple
January 23, 2016 5:10 pm

Wires and heating pads on the leading edge are one way, Siemens is doing that. Hot air is another way, Vestas is do that. They point out there are big advantages in not having wires along the blade during thunderstorms. (Actually, I think they already do, part of the lightning defense.)
http://analysis.windenergyupdate.com/operations-maintenance/will-heat-be-winner-de-icing-turbine-blades
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1217693/vestas-reveals-de-icing-system

Admin
Reply to  ferdberple
January 23, 2016 7:16 pm

Where does the electricity come from the 80% of the time the turbines aren’t producing electricity? Oh sorry, silly question…

John
Reply to  ferdberple
January 23, 2016 7:29 pm

Why not simply coat the blades with a water repellent materials?

Mike
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 2:34 am

Where does the electricity come from the 80% of the time the turbines aren’t producing electricity? Oh sorry, silly question…
Well it is pretty silly since that this not true. I seems you are referring to 100% – capacity factor which does not represent the amount of time that the turbines are not producing electricity. It could be regarded as the equivalent amount of time that they are not producing 100% boiler-plate capacity.
I think that is usually 20%-33% pretending up on who is cherry-picking the data. I suppose you could probably cherry pick some data to match your claim of 100% – 20%.
In decades to come this one photo alone with sum up an era of stupidity,
Very often classic transmission lines come down in snow storms. That does not make them a historically stupid idea. But don’t let me spoil a good WUWT rant, folks.

hunter
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 3:56 am

Wow a defender of windmills hopes no one pays attention to the fact that his phony argument ignores the fact that wind power operates at a small fraction of its rated capacity nearly all of the time
And of course the windmill blow hard skips over the unreliable high maintenance landscape destruction part of windmills.

cgh
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 6:58 am

Hunter, it’s much worse than that. Mike ignores the repeated short term power quality problems variable sources create in any grid system with surges and sags. Energy generated varies with the cube of the speed. So small changes in wind velocity produce large minute by minute changes in energy production.
He also ignores the manufacturers’ own specifications for wind turbines. The Vestas operating manual clearly indicates that operating a turbine at 100% capacity factor will prematurely age the facility, resulting in a service life much less than the 20 years claimed.
Next, he ignores the fact that wind turbine operators only report gross generation data. Wind turbines must have excitation current from the grid to start up. Net generation is actually much less than what is typically reported.
Next, he ignores the fact that regardless of whether or not there is any wind, turbines must be turned at regular intervals to prevent flattening of the bearings. Drawing current from the grid, this again reduces considerably their net generation.

catweazle666
Reply to  cgh
January 24, 2016 1:57 pm

Funny thing cgh, I never read a single post from a wind turdbin enthusiast who had the remotest idea of any of the engineering concepts you mention, and Mike is certainly no exception.

R. M. Flaherty
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 8:28 am

Why is there never any discussion about say Germany which hasinstalled19,000 turbines
And this has not resulted in any reduction in CO2……..the same for Denmark. I thought
The whole purpose of turbines was to eliminate CO2?????

cgh
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 6:08 pm

cat, there are some solutions to some of these problems. The very short term variability can be at least partially alleviated with a big capacitor bank, But it’s a large added expense, so none of them do this.
RM Flaherty, there’s been no reduction in German GHGs because of their shutdown of eight nuclear power reactors. Additional wind and solar construction cannot provide more than a very small fraction of the lost kWhs from nuclear. Each of those reactors produced about 4 TWh annually. Making up for the missing 32 TWh is mostly gas, and further down the line new lignite coal-fired plants. The remaining nine German reactors shut in the mid-2020s. Except for a trivial fraction of energy from wind, their energy too will be replaced mostly by a mix of gas and coal.
It should also be noted that Germany’s net electrical energy imports from France and Poland are rising. Just like California, Germany is at least partially exporting its electrical generation to other jurisdictions.

jpattitude
Reply to  ferdberple
January 25, 2016 1:13 pm

Because when the blades are iced, they aren’t producing electricity, so blade warmers would be a net draw on the grid. It’s bad enough the damn things are so undependable — letting them be a net draw would be too much.

Reply to  ferdberple
January 25, 2016 4:35 pm

“Who knows, if you say for example install 1000 turbines, you could probably advertise – “Produces enough power to heat 1000 turbines”.
That’s brilliant! Very funny! Well done.

Reply to  ferdberple
January 25, 2016 5:06 pm

Pfft!

Mike Macray
Reply to  ferdberple
January 27, 2016 7:02 pm

Unlikely to be hot water.. more likely ethylene glycol as used in deicing aircraft wings.

Reply to  Alec Rawls
January 23, 2016 4:48 pm

They already make commercial blade warmers. Just install a set on the turbine and bobs your uncle.
http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/n-zfvgw8/mczp0fg4/products/76/images/300/kit__98095.1383427860.1280.1280.jpg

Reply to  ferdberple
January 23, 2016 5:08 pm

ah, but those babies need electricity

catweazle666
Reply to  ferdberple
January 23, 2016 5:51 pm

My old BMW Alpina has heated screenwashers!

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 5:06 pm

So they put PV panels on the windmills to power the blade warmers. Simples.

Reply to  Alec Rawls
January 23, 2016 8:54 pm

When wind turbines are stopped in cold weather, they have to draw heat from the grid to keep the internals warmed. I would love to see the complications added of blade warmers, making these monstrosities even more expensive, maintenance intensive, and prone to breakdowns. Lovely. More of those green jobs.

JJM Gommers
Reply to  higley7
January 24, 2016 2:26 am

That is just the claim of the greens, this kind of technology will provide more jobs, in this case to try to keep them running,

Eva
Reply to  higley7
January 25, 2016 12:34 pm

🙂

Editor
Reply to  Alec Rawls
January 25, 2016 4:01 am


Not good enough doing just the leading edge though. The whole blade would need to be kept ice free for balance reasons.

novaks47
Reply to  Alec Rawls
January 25, 2016 9:24 am

What Mike is also ignoring, is that wind turbines USE electricity when they are not producing. They have to keep them spinning, because if they sit too long, the bearings will get trashed. Perhaps he can run some percentages on that.

Dave N
Reply to  Alec Rawls
January 26, 2016 7:19 pm

“Very often classic transmission lines come down in snow storms.”
Accidental damage and hypocritical maintenance is nowhere near the same thing
” That does not make them a historically stupid idea”
It certainly makes your argument hysterically stupid.

Marcus
January 23, 2016 3:08 pm

The ultimate in stupidity !!

nottoobrite
Reply to  Marcus
January 24, 2016 7:18 am

Ssshh!
Appears a new sport is developing for the hotblooded young!
You shoot an arrow with a fishing line couple to a heavy line the same time as a friend at a wind turbine , run like hell and watch the 2 beasts tear each other apart .

Gunga Din
January 23, 2016 3:10 pm

Reminds me of a story I saw several years ago. A city in Minnesota or Wisconsin had put up wind turbines. They bought them from a California company.
The various lubrication fluids used locked up in the winter.
No spin, no power.

co2islife
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 23, 2016 3:18 pm

A city in Minnesota or Wisconsin had put up wind turbines. They bought them from a California company.

You gotta love it. Bubble headed Californians get rich promoting this nonsense, and common sense Mid-Westerners are gullible enough to buy into it. The Californians get rich selling Junk to the people that are known for their common sense. My bet was the towns that bought that garbage were college towns full of government grant sponsored climate scientists.

Duster
Reply to  co2islife
January 23, 2016 7:47 pm

What Californians get rich? The ones I know are not rich. We’ve loads of transplanted easterners, midwesterners and Canadians that all congregate in the cities, and guess where all that money is? If good ol’ Jerry would just aim his tunnels at Lake Superior, the rest of the state could go about feeding you lot like we used to.

Reply to  co2islife
January 24, 2016 7:56 pm

Then there’s the LED traffic lights in Minnesota that have to have heating elements in winter. Now, they ARE still brighter and more reliable than incandescents, but the savings was not nearly what they were billed.

Tucci78
Reply to  Michael Z. Williamson
January 24, 2016 10:03 pm

Writer Michael Z. Williamson observes:

Then there’s the LED traffic lights in Minnesota that have to have heating elements in winter. Now, they ARE still brighter and more reliable than incandescents, but the savings was not nearly what they were billed.

Say whatever you like about Minnesota, but since they elected Al Franken to the U.S. Senate, I’ve seen neither hide nor hair of the officious whiner on even the lamestream media conduits managed by the Democrat Party Audiovisual Club. It seems almost as if somebody took him down to the old swimmin’ hole and put him under with a sufficiency of cinder blocks.
(Surely that’s not true, but I can indulge my happy fantasies, can’t I?)

MarkW
Reply to  co2islife
January 25, 2016 5:46 am

The biggest expense with traffic lights is not the electricity to run them, it’s the maintenance guys who have to go out on a regular basis to replace the bulbs before they burn out. LEDs last many times longer and since they are multiple bulbs, if a few burns out, the light gets dimmer, but it is still visible.

Reply to  co2islife
January 25, 2016 10:31 am

I’m originally from WI, and spent last winter there for family reasons. My hometown is the heart of cheese country. When I was a kid, all that milk was produced on relatively small family farms, and small cheese factories were scattered about both town and country. Nowadays, factory dairy farms have taken over, a couple big cheese companies make all the cheese….and a lot of former dairying families have wind generators set up in their fields.

T Stelter
Reply to  co2islife
January 26, 2016 11:37 am

That town was North St. Paul, MN.

Goldrider
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 23, 2016 3:21 pm

Ah, but the POWER of SPIN! 😉

Tucci78
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 23, 2016 8:44 pm

Writes Gunga Din:

Reminds me of a story I saw several years ago. A city in Minnesota or Wisconsin had put up wind turbines. They bought them from a California company.
The various lubrication fluids used locked up in the winter.

Well, don’t blame that “California company.” With the Algore predicting that snow and ice in the temperate zone would be a thing of antiquity by 2016, how the heck could they have known that people in Minnesota and Wisconsin would be having blade icing problems?

JohnKnight
Reply to  Tucci78
January 23, 2016 10:08 pm

Yeah, his internet works pretty well . .

co2islife
January 23, 2016 3:13 pm

We have a turbine within 200 yards of the extremely busy Highway/outerbelt, Imagine the damage thrown ice could do on a busy day at rush hour. Solar isn’t any better.
http://me.queensu.ca/Research/images/raking-snow-off-panels.jpg

4TimesAYear
Reply to  co2islife
January 23, 2016 6:12 pm

Someday someone is going to fall off a ladder doing that and sue the solar panel company.

Menicholas
Reply to  4TimesAYear
January 24, 2016 5:09 pm

Best to sue the ladder and boot manufacturers as well.
And whoever forgot to fluff the snow underneath the ladder.

4TimesAYear
Reply to  Menicholas
January 25, 2016 4:46 am

My point is that if it weren’t for this whole climate change nonsense, there wouldn’t be solar panels on the roof that needed clearing – but maybe I erred – he should be suing the climate alarmists for starting this whole needless movement. 😉

schitzree
Reply to  co2islife
January 24, 2016 12:07 pm

I get the distinct impression that pic is shopped. Not that it doesn’t accurately sum up one of the problems of rooftop solar above the snow belt.

Phaedrus
Reply to  co2islife
January 24, 2016 11:12 pm

Solar isn’t any better.
The sun and CO2 make plants and trees grow that turn into oil and coal eventually. What’s wrong with solar? SARC

Michael 2
January 23, 2016 3:18 pm

Maybe I will be first to suggest anti-icing heaters in the blades, same as used on some propeller driven aircraft and also in the wings thereof.

Editor
Reply to  Michael 2
January 23, 2016 3:36 pm

Some IWTs have that.

MRW
Reply to  Michael 2
January 23, 2016 3:41 pm

No, you won’t be. Here’s a 2012 Swedish study that discusses what is ideal versus what they actually know and can do. Start around page 24. It’s laughable.
http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Vindforsk/Survey%20reports/12_13_report_icing.pdf

SMC
Reply to  MRW
January 23, 2016 4:18 pm

That study used a lot of paper and words to say… not much.

Reply to  MRW
January 23, 2016 4:39 pm

That study used a lot of paper and words to say… not much.
===============
consultants are paid by the pounds of paper produced.

Reply to  MRW
January 23, 2016 5:24 pm

@ferdberble, 4.39 pm Jan 23, That reminds of statements made years ago that computers would save the forests! ( btw I have wondered for awhile where your “ferberble” name came from?)

Reply to  MRW
January 23, 2016 9:50 pm

: “consultants are paid by the pounds of paper produced”
Ah, yes, the old college joke. The instructor said, “I’m grading your term papers based on quality, not quantity.”
A student asked, “And how do you measure quality?”
The instructor replied, “I weigh it on a scale.”

Patrick MJD
Reply to  MRW
January 23, 2016 10:12 pm

“ferdberple
January 23, 2016 at 4:39 pm
consultants are paid by the pounds of paper produced.”
The best analogy I have heard to describe a consultant is this;
A consultant is hired to tell you a time. They borrow your watch, read it and tell you what the indicated time is. Is it accurate? You didn’t ask for accuracy did you?! They then keep your watch and send you a bill. Cha-ching!

tty
Reply to  MRW
January 24, 2016 2:06 am

You must understand that here in Sweden Wind Power is very PC. It is practically sacred and can only be criticized extremely tactfully.

MattS
Reply to  MRW
January 24, 2016 11:00 am

“That study used a lot of paper and words to say… not much.”
Big deal. A politician could use twice as many words and say nothing at all.

woz
Reply to  MRW
January 24, 2016 11:20 pm

If we’re going to insult consultants, let me save time – have a look at our (naturally self-deprecating) “humorous” comments about me and my fellows: http://www.adrianwalsh.com.au/fun-stuff.html

MarkW
Reply to  MRW
January 25, 2016 5:50 am

I had a high school teacher who used to say that he graded papers by throwing them down the stairs. The ones that flew the furthest got A’s.

Editor
Reply to  Michael 2
January 23, 2016 3:44 pm

Michael 2

Maybe I will be first to suggest anti-icing heaters in the blades, same as used on some propeller driven aircraft and also in the wings thereof.

Too difficult to run those very, very high volt cables back up through the tower through the gears and past the drives and yaw and pitch controllers and then out through the hub and their bearings out through the blades to the heating elements. Oh. And the blades are weakened by the notches and gouges needed to route the heaters through the fiberglass and kevlar layers. Which are heavy and not aerodynamically compatible across the face and roots.
Better and safer to just shut the wind turbine down when its blades are iced up. Which is when the power is needed. 8<)

commieBob
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 4:32 pm

Electric deicing for aircraft propellers It’s technically doable. I leave the economics to you as an exercise.
I know there are lots of reasons it’s safe but seeing a helicopter that close to a windmill scares the willies out of me.

Editor
Reply to  commieBob
January 23, 2016 4:35 pm

Electric deicing for aircraft propellers It’s technically doable. I leave the economics to you as an exercise.

And the difference is the 50 meter wind turbine length and its thousands of greater mass and iced-area, compared to the 1 meter propeller blade – spinning at a higher rate of speed. the much higher speeds mean the propeller blade spins off smaller chunks of ice more easily. Kind of like trying to rotate a kitchen towel and your living room rug, or a broomstick and telephone pole.

1saveenergy
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 5:10 pm

@ RACookPE1978
“Too difficult to run those very, very high volt cables back up through the tower through the gears and past the drives and yaw and pitch controllers and then out through the hub and their bearings out through the blades to the heating elements. ”
It’s done with industry standard slip-rings.

Editor
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 5:15 pm

What do you think of Vesta’s hot air deicing system? No wires, no heating pads in the blades. I can think of several problems, but if you use it as clouds are breaking up and before the really cold air advects in, it can buy you several days of production. Of course, I’d have to hate you for running wind turbines….

Editor
Reply to  Ric Werme
January 23, 2016 6:41 pm

Ric Werme

What do you think of Vesta’s hot air deicing system? No wires, no heating pads in the blades. I can think of several problems, but if you use it as clouds are breaking up and before the really cold air advects in, it can buy you several days of production.

Hot air ducted inside simple tubes within the kevlar/fiberglass blade matrix is a bit simpler for lightning protection grounding and for strength, but it needs a rotary device inside the turbine housing to allow rotation, pitch, yaw, and speed control. Possible of course, but difficult.

Janice Moore
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 6:17 pm

Windmills are NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE — and only a windmill hu$tler will claim otherwise.

evidence seems to be accumulating that bearings are a serious problem for the wind industry.
Siemens citing bearing failures as part of the reason for a substantial fall in profit;
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2014/05/07/siemens-energy-division-profit-down-54-pct/
***
http://www.geartechnology.com/newsletter/0112/drives.htm (an attempt to make direct drive turbines, to reduce bearing wear)
“… More accurately, it is typically the bearings within the gearbox that fail, in turn gumming up the gearbox, but that’s a story for another time. …”

(Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/26/bearings-the-achilles-heel-of-wind-turbines/ )
Windmill hu$ters like 1save can try divert attention from their sc@m all they want by talk about de-icer tech and the like, but, until there is a MASSIVE advance in bearing tech, windmills will NEVER have a positive ROI (without tax and traditional power rate surcharge subsidies).

Janice Moore
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 6:24 pm

Wow. This is the first time this has happened when I tried to access this article just now (it was accessible within the past 12 months, can’t recall last time I accessed it):
Ruth Lea in “Civitas”: http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf)
She makes a well-researched, devastating, case establishing the fact that windmills are permanent negative ROI.
I tried adding “archive” after “uk/ and STILL “Page not found.”
Meh. Whatever. TRUTH will win, you windmill sc@mmers. The facts are already out there. Just a matter of time… until your “investment” is rusting hulk history.

Janice Moore
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 6:50 pm

Mark X! THANK YOU! 🙂

commieBob
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 6:52 pm

Janice Moore says:
January 23, 2016 at 6:24 pm
Wow. This is the first time this has happened when I tried to access this article just now (it was accessible within the past 12 months, can’t recall last time I accessed it):
Ruth Lea in “Civitas”: http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf)

It looks like the article disappeared recently; Google thinks it’s still there. Is this the same article?

lee
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 7:03 pm

JM, They seem to have a later paper they are quoting.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/Williams_SecondLookAtWindPower.pdf

Janice Moore
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 7:04 pm

commieBob! Thank you! No, but the content appears similar (just too tired of tech reading for this evening). Thank you, so much. Now, I have TWO cites in my Word file “Science for the Non-Scientist – CO2 Facts” where I only had one! Very thoughtful of you both. Sure wish you weren’t a commie, Bob, but, I’m glad you’re here.
#(:))

Janice Moore
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 7:12 pm

AND lee! WOW. THREE good cites! Hooray! Thank you, so much.
I think someone knows it’s my birthday next week! 🙂
Whee!

Janice Moore
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 7:14 pm

Alan Robertson (with ferdberple in reply) at 5:47pm also nicely address the bearing issue.

Climate Heretic
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 7:40 pm

Janice and others
If you put “electricitycosts2012.pdf”, into Google search without the quotes and click on the first link, you will be able to download a copy of the document by Ruth Lea, electriciytcosts2012.
Hope this helps.
Regards
Climate Heretic
PS I have a copy if needed

Janice Moore
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 7:45 pm

Thank you, Climate Heretic.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 8:57 pm

Janice Moore et al, y’all need to put archive.org and the archive.org bookmarklet in your bookmarks toolbar (Chrome or Firefox) or favorites toolbar (IE)! It is indispensable for finding lost web pages and documents, and for saving web pages and documents for posterity before they’re lost.
I’ve put collections of bookmarks/favorites on my web site, for archive.org and several similar tools, here:
http://www.sealevel.info/archiving_tools_IE.zip
http://www.sealevel.info/archiving_tools_chrome.html
http://www.sealevel.info/archiving_tools_firefox.html
For Internet Explorer, just unzip the contents of archiving_tools_IE.zip into your c:\Users\%USERNAME%\Favorites\ folder. That should create and populate the c:\Users\%USERNAME%\Favorites\Links\archiving folder, which should appear on your Favorites toolbar.
For Chrome and Firefox, I think you can just import the bookmarks. (I exported them, but haven’t tested importing them. If the “archiving” folder doesn’t appear on your bookmarks toolbar you might need to move it there from wherever it landed.)
There are nine bookmarks:
Archive.org — “The Wayback Machine” (the biggest archiving site)
archive org this pg — finds the current page in The Wayback Machine archives
archive org save this pg — saves the current page in The Wayback Machine archives
Archive.is — another excellent archiving site; select text on the saved page to create a link directly to it
archive is save this pg — saves or finds the current page in the archives
Citebite.com — another archiving tool which permits citing a particular snippet of the save page (only minimally maintained)
Cite selection — save the current page and cite the currently selected text with Citebite
WebCitation.org — an archiving tool which can automatically email you a link to the saved page
webcite this pg — save the current page with WebCitation, and email a link
Note: For all three browsers, you should edit the “WebCite this pg” bookmark/favorite, and insert your own email address where indicated. (When you save a web page via that bookmark, it emails you a short message containing the original and saved links, which is very handy when you need to find it someday.)

Janice Moore
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 9:12 pm

Thank you, Daveburton (8:57pm), for the greatly helpful and nicely detailed archive advice. It was kind of you to take the time. I’ve saved the link to your comment!

Berényi Péter
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 24, 2016 12:44 am

Janice Moore January 23, 2016 at 6:24 pm
Wow. This is the first time this has happened when I tried to access this article just now (it was accessible within the past 12 months, can’t recall last time I accessed it):
Ruth Lea in “Civitas”: http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf)
She makes a well-researched, devastating, case establishing the fact that windmills are permanent negative ROI.
I tried adding “archive” after “uk/ and STILL “Page not found.”

Here you go.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150905162459/http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf

Menicholas
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 24, 2016 5:17 pm

Anyone else notice how small the copter is next to that windmill?
At first glance I thought it was a cartoon or a photoshopped pic.
That must takes lots of power to deice, or lots of that hot water they are spraying on it.
*brain explodes*

Golden
Reply to  Michael 2
January 23, 2016 3:50 pm

What will power those anti-icing heaters when the wind mills aren’t producing power?

Ack
Reply to  Golden
January 23, 2016 4:09 pm

Coal

tgmccoy
Reply to  Golden
January 23, 2016 4:23 pm

Nuclear.

DonM
Reply to  Golden
January 23, 2016 4:48 pm

No, we can cover the blades & turbine housing with solar panels.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Golden
January 23, 2016 6:35 pm

DonM — LOL. +1

mebbe
Reply to  Golden
January 23, 2016 8:30 pm

The downwash from the helicopter would work just fine to keep the blades turning. They’d just add a little anti-freeze mist. Biodegradable. The antifreeze, not the windmill.

Wrusssr
Reply to  Golden
January 23, 2016 10:23 pm

Aliens with ice scrapers?
Tie a climateer to the pole, pile wood, light?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Golden
January 24, 2016 1:36 pm

Something that actually works?

Reply to  Michael 2
January 24, 2016 8:19 am

IIRC, the first B1-B bombers did not have deicing in the wings. They lost several to icing.

Reply to  Michael 2
January 24, 2016 9:18 am

Aircraft propellers spin at 1900 to 2600 RPM. Prop heat only protects the blades near the hub. There are armor plates on the fuselage to keep the ice thrown off from piercing the hull. Windmills spin at about 1 RPM. You would have to heat the whole blade. It would take tons of power.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Jean Schwarzkopf
January 24, 2016 10:05 am

For an ENERCON E-82 and E-70, the energy consumption of the rotor blade heating system is roughly 85 kW.

Editor
Reply to  1saveenergy
January 24, 2016 11:39 am

For an ENERCON E-82 and E-70, the energy consumption of the rotor blade heating system is roughly 85 kW.

And yet their own advertising pdf file for their blade heating system claims that, without the enrgy LOST running a blade heating system in Europe – even the “running” windmills now claiming a 16-21% performance rating! – lose AN ADDITIONAL 27% to 435 of their “assumed” power output.
So, a normal windmill running in Europe (ENERCON tested their heaters in Sweden and the CZ) only generates power 16 – 21% of its nameplate rating. But apparently, even that generation “rating” is further reduced by icing between November through January into March.
We are still reading the various ENERCON heating sources available. More later.

Menicholas
Reply to  Jean Schwarzkopf
January 24, 2016 5:23 pm

I think they turn at more than 1 RPM. Just a sec…
In this video, chosen at random from the first ones that I could find, you can time one rotation at about 5 seconds, or 12 RPM:

Editor
Reply to  Menicholas
January 24, 2016 5:34 pm

Menicholas

In this video, chosen at random from the first ones that I could find, you can time one rotation at about 5 seconds, or 12 RPM:

Hmmn. Check again. I see 1 blade passing the same vertical point in 15 seconds, or 4 rpm. Careful: That is just one operation point, and your mileage will vary as wind speed changes. But there are three blades, ya know. 8<)

Menicholas
Reply to  Jean Schwarzkopf
January 24, 2016 8:40 pm

I was looking at the first one visible in the background at the start of the video. I just watched again, I counted to five Mississippi, slowly, for the same one to come around.

Menicholas
Reply to  Jean Schwarzkopf
January 24, 2016 8:41 pm

Yep, took about from .07 second mark to .12 second mark for one revolution. I think. What do I know.

Menicholas
Reply to  Jean Schwarzkopf
January 24, 2016 8:43 pm

That one with the red stripes is moving much more slowly…I did not watch that far the first time.

Menicholas
Reply to  Jean Schwarzkopf
January 24, 2016 8:47 pm

The bird chopper video below has about the same speed…five seconds per revolution. This blades are moving fast at the tips. I calculated it out once using the manufacturers specs…it was stunningly fast, because some people doubted that the blades of a “slow moving” wind turbine could be very dangerous. They are so big, the illusion of slow motion is very convincing to some people.

January 23, 2016 3:20 pm

Pity Einstein has socialist tendencies:)

1saveenergy
Reply to  Rafe
January 24, 2016 11:54 am

So did Jesus !!

Gunga Din
Reply to  1saveenergy
January 24, 2016 1:39 pm

Overreach.

Janice Moore
Reply to  1saveenergy
January 24, 2016 1:48 pm

No. He did not.
For just ONE example:

“’But he answered one of them, “Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Did not you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have a right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious… ?”’”

Jesus advocated there: 1) Liberty of contract (“didn’t you agree?”)
2) Private property (“do what I like with my money”)
3) Envy = root of Socialist’s theory
(See Matthew 20:13-15; see also II. Corinthians 9:7, “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”)
Since this is WAY off topic, I am stopping here.

John
January 23, 2016 3:22 pm

Is there a source for this story please?
I suspect that the turbines were actually stopped deliberately to prevent flying ice. Would be good if you could link to more details.

kev1701e
Reply to  John
January 23, 2016 3:30 pm

A quick Google on the posted image finds this: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/vindkraft/article3877156.ece

John
Reply to  kev1701e
January 23, 2016 3:50 pm

Thanks that seems to be the source. I wouldn’t call it ‘recent’ though as the photo is 2 years old and also says its from a test site where they are testing de-icing.
Takes 2 days of running the wind turbine to make the energy needed to de-ice it! Doesn’t seem very successful!

James Allison
Reply to  John
January 23, 2016 3:33 pm

Or this Googled PDF link
“De‐icing of wind turbine blades by means of an helicopter opens new opportunities”
http://www.winterwind.se/sundsvall-2014/presentations-2014/?edmc=2769

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  John
January 23, 2016 3:38 pm

John January 23, 2016 at 3:22 pm
Is there a source for this story please?
yep. read it myself a few days ago. “Go fish”.
Oh and your “I Suspect” , totally wrong.
michael

Reply to  John
January 23, 2016 4:59 pm

I suspect that the turbines were actually stopped deliberately to prevent flying ice.
=============
more likely to prevent flying blades as the out of balance turbine blades would make short work of the turbine itself.
https://youtu.be/8NAAzBArYdw

Reply to  ferdberple
January 23, 2016 6:24 pm

So sad. We know it is happening, but to see that eagle killed just because it enjoyed the air currents stirred by that murderous windmill is just disgraceful. When will these charlatans be held to account?

Stephen Reilly
Reply to  ferdberple
January 23, 2016 10:50 pm

Question: It would appear that because these huge blades cause changes in air flow patterns the birds, particularly eagles, are attracted to wind turbines. Is that so?
And, I am appreciative of someone else somewhere in this thread pointing out that if anyone, other than wind turbine makers, built a machine that chopped up bald eagles, no matter how few, the government would have a SWAT team making a visit within hours.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 4:05 am

I suspect that the turbines were actually stopped deliberately to prevent flying ice.
I think they stopped them to avoid what happened to the eagle to also happen to the heli.

Editor
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 5:56 am

Turbines have sensors that detect out-of-balance loading and automatically shutdown. I don’t know if the operators shut them down after sensing the loss of performance from icing or if an ice throw triggered the balance sensors.

Editor
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 6:05 am

I don’t believe birds are attracted to turbines. However, in hilly areas, turbines are installed on mountain ridges, and soaring birds use them for the thermals and orographic winds so the two are brought together. It’s important to remember that blade tips are moving at nearly 200 mph (300 kph) and are unlike any other structures flying critters encounter.
Bats do appear to be attracted to turbines, for unclear reasons. Boston Univ. researchers have some interesting IR videos showing bats flying around turbines and being hit. Most bat deaths are caused just by the low pressure zone behind the blade that damages their lungs. A lot of the bat mortality could be stopped by slightly raising the cut-in wind speed to the point where bats are grounded, but most of the turbine operating time is in that low speed regime.
http://www.bu.edu/cecb/bat-lab-update/bats/wind/video/

Gunga Din
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 1:44 pm

It appeared to me that the turbulence and not an actual strike was enough to break its wings.
Has PeTA spoken up about this? (How do I make a really big “/sarc” tag?)

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 5:27 pm

Eagle, or buzzard?

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 5:40 pm

Stephen, there is no doubt these turbines get some sort of special dispensation or waiver from prosecution/fines for killing large migratory birds, and birds of prey.
It is horrendous.
Then they attempt to justify it by trying to claim cats kill far more birds than windmills.
They also neglect to project what will happen to birds if and when the planned number of these choppers are built out.
Will nay birds be left after these things are coast to coast, north to south and catching every breeze? For how many years? The more I think about it the m ore outrageous it is.
But even more shocking is the utter lack of concern expressed by people who would otherwise scream bloody murder over a single bird death by any other industry.
I noted during the last election cycle the glaringly obvious selective outrage people expressed regarding things people say, wanting to have someone on the political opposition side fired or worse for any perceived slight, but not caring at all when someone on their own side made far worse comments in the same vein.
The exact same thing happens here. It reveals that many of these people and organizations do not care about the causes they harp on…it is an excuse to pursue a certain agenda against certain people.

January 23, 2016 3:24 pm

on the subject of wasted resources… the global warming extremists will have disadvantaged the West and removed excess capital from the coffers of what,up until then, were the most generous peoples on the planet, thereby reducing the amount of future generosity which would have been spent 3-4 times more efficiently than the funds absconded by the U.N. and the bribe scientists and bureaucrats of the IPCC.
And while were on the subject of waste… how about the tragedy of burning the world’s food supply to manufacture the world’s most ridiculous fuel…ethanol. This is truly a crime against humanity and we should be ashamed of ourselves for letting it happen…. with trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil just waiting to be fracked from the U.S. shale…. and we’re burning food that could feed the world. WHAT TOTAL CRAP these environmental whack jobs have for brains!!!

Reply to  Gordon Jeffrey Giles
January 23, 2016 4:25 pm

we’ll see how Ted Cruz does in Iowa in a week or so …

Reply to  Gordon Jeffrey Giles
January 23, 2016 5:05 pm

… for those not familiar, Cruz has spoken out against ethanol subsidies while campaigning in Iowa, massive corn grower, saying the government should not be picking winners. Iowa Governor has come out against Cruz for this – wanting to keep the trough full.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 23, 2016 6:27 pm

I believe both Trump and Cruz are anti-AGW scam. Cruz would make a good V-P, and between them they could knock those lying scam artists out of play.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 23, 2016 6:40 pm

mikelowe2013,
Don’t you see the game? Hillary is out of it. Sanders can’t beat anyone, so now “Republican” Bloomberg steps in looking like a ‘moderate’.
He’s no moderate, he is as far left as the current Democrat pack, and more RINO than McCain.
He will run. He’s a billionaire. He’s won elections, so he has the experience. The media will be in the tank for him. And Americans in general have been so dumbed down that they’ll believe the non-stop advertising about what a swell guy he is.
He’s not. He’s a one-world socialist, no different than George Soros. He’s all in for windmills, and the AGW scam, etc. He announced today that he’s “thinking” about running, and will decide by March. Baloney. He is going to run.
This is exactly what the Republican establishment wants. They are selling the rank and file republicans down the river. And I say this as someone who’s never been a Republican.

rogerknights
Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 24, 2016 1:45 am

Maybe Jim Webb will toss his hat in the ring as an independent too, if he can get some donors. That would split the vote into four quarters, with the House voting on the winner. (Who might be none of the four.)

Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 24, 2016 6:39 am

mikelowe2013 January 23, 2016 at 6:27 pm
I believe both Trump and Cruz are anti-AGW scam. Cruz would make a good V-P, and between them they could knock those lying scam artists out of play.

Donald Trump is incoherent; see here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/17/478138/
In any case, the Trumpster is selling nothing but snake oil; he will say whatever he thinks will energize the rubes. Don’t believe a word of it. In 2012 he was against Mitt Romney’s ‘self-deportation’ idea as inhumane. Now he wants to deport all illegal aliens and ‘build a wall’. It’s just Trump babble.
Ted Cruz knows what he is talking about, and sticks to his principles. AFAIK, he is the only presidential candidate to take a firm stand against the CAGW hoax.
/Mr Lynn

Tucci78
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
January 24, 2016 8:02 am

Inveighs L.E. Joiner:

In any case, the Trumpster is selling nothing but snake oil; he will say whatever he thinks will energize the rubes. Don’t believe a word of it. In 2012 he was against Mitt Romney’s ‘self-deportation’ idea as inhumane. Now he wants to deport all illegal aliens and ‘build a wall’.

Or does this indicate that The Donald is both more educable (i.e., unlike his rivals Red and Blue, he actively observes developing situations, processes the information in orienting it to decision-making, and incorporates these improved appreciations into proposed solutions for the problems perceived) and less corrupt (regardless of influence by troughers with vested interests invidious to the common weal)?
Well, we can all see how that would “energize the rubes,” eh?

I am his Highness’ dog at Kew;
Pray tell me, Sir, whose dog are you?

— Alexander Pope, “Epigram Engraved on the Collar of a Dog Which I Gave to His Royal Highness” (Frederick, Prince of Wales)

T. Madigan
Reply to  Tucci78
January 24, 2016 8:40 am

Anyone who votes for Donald Trump or any of the other imbeciles running on the Republican ticket should have their heads examined. In short, if any of these fools actually wins next November, the American people and the rest of the world are thoroughly screwed.

Tucci78
Reply to  T. Madigan
January 24, 2016 9:47 am

Fulminates T. Madigan (who would vote for Jerry Sandusky, running from his jail cell, were he at the top of the Democrat Party ticket in November):

Anyone who votes for Donald Trump or any of the other imbeciles running on the Republican ticket should have their heads examined. In short, if any of these fools actually wins next November, the American people and the rest of the world are thoroughly screwed.

So is every average American citizen not yet used to getting forcibly futtered by our “public servants”?
Better, of course, getting “thoroughly screwed” by the Republicans (nominal or actual) than done agonizingly to death by T. Madigan‘s beloved “Liberal” (or is it “progressive” again this week?) National Socialism.
Rape, after all, is not invariably fatal.

T. Madigan
Reply to  Tucci78
January 24, 2016 10:58 am

I haven’t the time or inclination to debate politics with you or anyone else here, save for your reference to “National Socialism”. If you meant to link me to the Nazis, you fail because the Nazis (and Hitler) were rightist-fascist ideologues, not leftist socialists. This is a matter of historical fact. And (by the way), your hero, yellow-haired, orangutan-like, big-mouthed buffoon (read national embarrassment – need I say more that Sarah Palin endorses him) is a Nazi lover and sympathizer.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/01/22/3741977/trump-retweets-white-supremecist
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kasich-donald-trump-nazis_us_5655b553e4b072e9d1c139fa :
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Tucci78
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 24, 2016 11:36 am

Writes our host in order to prevent a sort of “Scouring of the Shire” here:

OK that’s enough of this from everyone, stop it.

As you wish, sir.

They asked each other countless riddles, such as who played the Cisco Kid and what was Krypton. In the end Dildo won the game. Stumped at last for a riddle to ask, he cried out, as his hand fell on his snub-nosed .38, “What have I got in my pocket?” This Goddam failed to answer, and growing impatient, he paddled up to Dildo, whining, “Let me see, let me see.” Dildo obliged by pulling out the pistol and emptying it in Goddam’s direction. The dark spoiled his aim, and he managed only to deflate the rubber float, leaving Goddam to flounder. Goddam, who couldn’t swim, reached out his hand to Dildo and begged him to pull him out, and as he did, Dildo noticed an interesting-looking ring on his finger and pulled it off. He would have finished Goddam off then and there, but pity stayed his hand.
“It’s a pity I’ve run out of bullets,” he thought….

— Henry Beard & Doug Kenney, Bored of the Rings (1969)

catweazle666
Reply to  T. Madigan
January 24, 2016 2:39 pm

T. Madigan: ” If you meant to link me to the Nazis, you fail because the Nazis (and Hitler) were rightist-fascist ideologues”
Wrong. The Nazis were National Socialists, while Stalin’s Communist Party were International Socialists. Ever hear of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?
Look up the meaning of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
Then read this.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html
Funny, isn’t it, how you Socialists invariably deny your association with the religion that replaced ‘God’ with ‘the State’ and killed more of its own people in the mid-twentieth century than all theologically based religions managed in the whole of recorded history?

T. Madigan
Reply to  catweazle666
January 24, 2016 6:41 pm

Wrong, try again. This is an oft-cited argument, an urban myth really, used by neo-cons to bash anyone who associates them or some of their ideas with Hitler and the Nazis. Listen real close to what Trump is doing now with his rhetoric, he’s already singling out Muslims and Mexicans or any immigrants of color, *just like* Hitler did with the socialists, gypsies, the Jews and eventually anyone else who wasn’t Aryan. Hitler and the Nazis were rightist-fascists and to deny that is an attempt to rewrite history.
This famous quote of Martin Niemöller: “First they came for the Socialists…”: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392
http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/germanyandprussia/fl/Was-Adolf-Hitler-a-Socialist-Debunking-a-Historical-Myth.htm: “Germans who passed their racist criteria, and submitted the individual to the will of the state, but did so as a right-wing racial movement which sought a nation of healthy Aryans living in a thousand year Reich, which would be achieved through war. In Nazi theory, a new, unified class was to be formed instead of religious, political and class divides, but this was to be done by rejecting ideologies such as liberalism, capitalism and socialism, and instead pursue a different idea, of the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), built on war and race, ‘blood and soil’, and German heritage.”
http://remember.org/guide/facts-root-nazi: The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state. Totalitarian regimes, in contrast to a dictatorship, establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects, and are usually headed by a charismatic leader. Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state.

Editor
Reply to  T. Madigan
January 24, 2016 6:46 pm

Totalitarian regimes, in contrast to a dictatorship, establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects, and are usually headed by a charismatic leader.

Yeppers. Exactly what Obola is doing now with his domination over the media culture, the pop culture, the academical culture, the arts culture, the national press corpse culture, the national print media culture, the national film and music culture (country excepted somewhat), the national sexual culture, the Washington beltway culture, the politically correct (er, corrupt) culture, your culture, and the Euro-union culture.
No freedom of thought, of expression, nor of the press in ANY of them. Only hatred and domination of those they wish to oppress and silence.

catweazle666
Reply to  T. Madigan
January 25, 2016 10:20 am

T. Madigan: “Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state.”
AKA Socialism, hence Left wing, but with a strong influence from the corporates, Mussolini preferred the term “Corporatism” to Socialism.
Slice and dice it how you like, you Leftys are totalitarians.

T. Madigan
Reply to  catweazle666
January 24, 2016 6:51 pm

Wrong, try again. This is an oft-cited argument, an urban myth really, used by neo-cons to bash anyone who associates them or some of their ideas with Hitler and the Nazis. Listen real close to what Trump is doing now with his rhetoric, he’s already singling out Muslims and Mexicans or any immigrants of color, *just like* Hitler did with the socialists, gypsies, the Jews and eventually anyone else who wasn’t Aryan. Hitler and the Nazis were rightist-fascists and to deny that is an attempt to rewrite history.
This famous quote of Martin Niemöller says it all: “First they came for the Socialists…”: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392
And this:
http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/germanyandprussia/fl/Was-Adolf-Hitler-a-Socialist-Debunking-a-Historical-Myth.htm: “Germans who passed their racist criteria, and submitted the individual to the will of the state, but did so as a right-wing racial movement which sought a nation of healthy Aryans living in a thousand year Reich, which would be achieved through war. In Nazi theory, a new, united class was to be formed instead of religious, political and class divides, but this was to be done by rejecting ideologies such as liberalism, capitalism and socialism, and instead pursue a different idea, of the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), built on war and race, ‘blood and soil’, and German heritage.”
http://remember.org/guide/facts-root-nazi: The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state. Totalitarian regimes, in contrast to a dictatorship, establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects, and are usually headed by a charismatic leader.
Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state.
It is an absurdity of the highest order to suggest that Hitler was someone other than what history and historians have recorded him to be outside of the monster he was.

Editor
Reply to  T. Madigan
January 24, 2016 10:15 am

T.Madigan

Anyone who votes for Donald Trump or any of the other imbeciles running on the Republican ticket should have their heads examined. In short, if any of these fools actually wins next November, the American people and the rest of the world are thoroughly screwed.

Strong words, but incomplete.
Anyone who doesn’t vote for Donald Trump or any of the other imbeciles establishment-elite-despised candidates running on the Republican ticket should have their heads examined. In short, unless if any of these fools actually wins next November, the American people and the rest of the world are thoroughly screwed.
There. That’s better. I do suppose you have some justification for your hatred, your version of your statement, right? (Other than your desire for the prolonged death of millions of innocents by starvation, illness, cold and disease as innocents die in squalor forced by YOUR artificial energy prices and deliberate energy deprivation worldwide? )

Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 24, 2016 8:11 am

OK, I read the Donald Trump statement:
I consider climate change to be not one of our big problems. I consider it to be not a big problem at all. I think it’s weather, I think it’s weather changes. There could be some man-made something, but, you know, if you look at China, they’re doing nothing about it and other countries are doing nothing about it. It’s a big planet…
Sounds good to me.

Menicholas
Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 24, 2016 5:48 pm

Funny to hear someone wail and moan that a certain candidate will say anything to get elected!
No way, what politician would ever do that?
HAH!
Which one ever did not?

NZPete
January 23, 2016 3:25 pm

“In decades to come this one photo alone ***with*** sum up an era of stupidity,…”
Should be ***will***.
Great icon of the utter futility of the whole decarbonisation meme though!

January 23, 2016 3:29 pm

“heating the blades — this may require 10%-20% of the turbine’s nominal (rated) power”
thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) — 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost”

Reply to  Brant Ra
January 23, 2016 5:06 pm

thyristors are used as switches, not as heaters. if they heat up, it is bad. they are great switches because they are so fast the power never gets to build up, so they stay cool even when switching a large current.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Brant Ra
January 23, 2016 7:18 pm

There’s a thing used on aircraft called a de-icing boot, I’m not sure how widely it’s used, but I saw it in action when I was in (either a Cessna 310 or a King Air, can’t remember which). It’s an inflatable covering over the leading edge of the wing. When ice starts to build up, the pilot puts some air to the boot, it inflates (not by much, and not enough to change the wing profile too much), and the skin of ice just breaks up and falls off. You wouldn’t need wires in the blades.
The thing that I’ve noticed about wind turbines though, is that they are always breaking down. It’s so common to see 1 or 2 turbines not turning in a field of a dozen or so, that’s become what we expect. They aren’t very reliable now, and the more add-ons you modify them with, the more unreliable they will be. So if they ice up, better just leave them till the weather warms up.

Reply to  Smart Rock
January 23, 2016 8:34 pm

The windmills are not analogous to the wings of an airplane, they are analogous to the propellers. Putting blow ups on propellers is very difficult as you would need an o ring (or such) that could take high rpm’s.

Editor
Reply to  gymnosperm
January 23, 2016 8:39 pm

The windmills are not analogous to the wings of an airplane, they are analogous to the propellers. Putting blow ups on propellers is very difficult as you would need an o ring (or such) that could take high rpm’s.

The windmill blades are larger than most jet airplane wings. A few less flaps true, but just as large, and subject to more vibration and stress because they are constantly in the turbulent air just above ground level, then the smoother winds at blade top elevation, then the turbulence at ground level again. And again. And again … each revolution they “land” and “takeoff” with no damping system or fixed airplane mounts to reduce vibration.

richard verney
January 23, 2016 3:36 pm

The full quote is even better:

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

Reply to  richard verney
January 23, 2016 5:07 pm

Well if the Universe isn’t infinite, whatever is left over must be.

Reply to  richard verney
January 23, 2016 5:11 pm

Only, that would means that the Void between the Universe and Infinity wasn’t Purgatory after all, it was instead filled with human stupidity.

Menicholas
Reply to  richard verney
January 24, 2016 5:54 pm

Hard to imagine something that is infinite expanding.
After all, what is it expanding into?
And since the word itself encapsulates everything that exists, what does it even mean to have anything beyond it.
But if nothing is beyond it, what is it expanding…
Call me John Snow, because I know nothing.
And we are all John Snow.

January 23, 2016 3:38 pm

Let wind turbines be the symbol for the eco-fascism that has dominated the West since the turn of the century. Let the infamous hockey-stick be its sword, a solar panel for a shield.

Reply to  Andres Valencia
January 23, 2016 5:12 pm

I hope Josh wanders by your comment.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Andres Valencia
January 23, 2016 6:27 pm

Good one, indeed, Mr. Valencia!
Or… hockey-stick for the hammer
and a windmill blade for the sickle… on a blood red background, of course.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 24, 2016 2:06 am

A solar panel as a grave, a windmill as a tombstone, and pushing up a hockystick.

Davidq
January 23, 2016 3:44 pm

(NOTE: I am not saying this is not laughable.)
Here is an article, referencing this particular picture from the Swedish magazine NyTeknik:
“Kostnaden för att avisa en turbin motsvarar två dygns elproduktion. Beslutet är enkelt om man har ett nedisat vindkraftverk och vädertjänsten lovar fortsatt kyla, säger Mats Widgren.”
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/vindkraft/article3877156.ece
Roughly it says, to deice one turbine, using a helicopter cost about the equivalent of 48 hours of electricity production. The article mentions that the truck produces some 44 cubic meters of hot water overnight and then the helicopter shuttles to the turbines with hot water.
It works well in -20C weather.
It can take up to hour and a half to clear one turbine if it is heavily iced.
The article goes on to state that deicing equipment is installed, but better solutions are being engineered and built.
The place is in Boden, northern part of Swede.

Davidq
Reply to  Davidq
January 23, 2016 3:52 pm

P.S. The Swedish commenters are pissed off about this too. However, the commenters go through the calculations and figure that the 48 hour number is about right.
One commenter makes the point that why do they bother with wind at all? Sweden has Hydro and Nuclear power. All none C02 producing!!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Davidq
January 23, 2016 4:31 pm

Does this also cover the cost of the helicopter and crews. Check out the cost to rent a helicopter these days. this is a little Bell G2. I would say we are talking about 400-500/h for a sturdy ship for this kind of work.

James Francisco
Reply to  Davidq
January 23, 2016 7:29 pm

Apparentley stupidity is universal.

Davidq
Reply to  Davidq
January 23, 2016 5:51 pm

Gary P. Yes it was to cover the helicopter, crew etc.. This would not be your normal “rental” which is very expensive, I agree. These are on contract so they work on lower margins.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  Davidq
January 24, 2016 8:36 am

From experience, I would estimate minimum $1000 per hour of flight time. Hard to see but I believe this is a Eurocopter AS350 B3 , a pretty common machine for light work. It uses 190 Litres of fuel per hour.
http://www.gsheli.com/fleet/astar-350-b3/

MRW
January 23, 2016 3:54 pm

From a site dedicated to destroying wind turbines. Interesting Bloomberg chart of new investment in European renewables.
“Wind Power Investment Collapses in Sweden, Denmark, Finland & Norway”
http://stopthesethings.com/2015/10/08/wind-power-investment-collapses-in-sweden-denmark-finland-norway/

Reply to  MRW
January 23, 2016 5:29 pm

Detailed Analysis: 5-Minute dispatch price reached the Market Price Cap (MPC) of $13,800/MWh in South Australia for dispatch interval (DI) ending 0750 hrs.
=================
yikes! That is a wholesale price of $13.80 a KWh. While the retail price is around $0.10 a KWh. What can possible go wrong? How long can you sell something [retail] for 10 cents when it costs almost 14 dollars to buy it? Someone (guess who taxpayer) is going to end up owning a bankrupt industry.

lyn roberts
Reply to  ferdberple
January 23, 2016 8:09 pm

here in Queensland some years ago, the Govt introduced a scheme, to pay solar producers 44cents a KWh for feed in from their solar panels, to encourage people to install solar panels.
If you sell your house it is not transferable, or if you upgrade your small system cancels it out.
Wonder why if its such a good scheme, because the balance of taxpayers are paying the smart ones who are on this soo called great scheme.
Also this year the power companies are I believe are introducing a fee for having solar panels, and selling them power, do they want more of us to go off grid, NO COURSE NOT THEY SAY.
My thoughts on this are unprintable, but it has occured to me, that if a lot of us solar producers got together and switched off our feed in, say at 8am in the morning when demand surge starts, the power stations would not be able to spin up their turbines fast enough to make up the demand load, brownouts at the very least would be a possibility.
Solar panels owners unite, we do have the power!!!!!!

hunter
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 4:09 am

Lyn Roberts if all solar producers went off at once no one would notice
Perhaps give it a try.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 5:10 am

off peak for water heaters only might be 10c a kwh
mines 12.9 in vic
avg price of power is anywhere from 24 to 30c a kwh dayrates in aus

Carl Friis-Hansen
January 23, 2016 3:55 pm

To rescue a turbine in distress, they heat 40m3 water to 60C from possibly 7C. The system was “invented” and tested earlier 2015.
I am sure the birds love the warm shower.

NW sage
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 23, 2016 4:46 pm

They would if they hadn’t been killed by the big blades!

H.R.
Reply to  NW sage
January 23, 2016 6:25 pm

Win-Win. Duck soup.

lyn roberts
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 23, 2016 8:12 pm

Love it, coudn’t agree with you more, chicken soup anyone.

Golden
January 23, 2016 3:59 pm

If we enter a period of Global Cooling those windmills will blend into the frozen environment well. That’s all they will do because they would [not] be producing any electricity.

Brian H
Reply to  Golden
January 23, 2016 4:45 pm

…won’t be producing…

PaulH
January 23, 2016 4:07 pm

Hey, maybe the breeze from that helicopter’s rotor can get that windmill spinning!
/snark

Reply to  PaulH
January 23, 2016 5:42 pm

@ PaulH, Thanks for the laugh!

clipe
January 23, 2016 4:07 pm

Wouldn’t “hot” water freeze on contact in cold temperatures.
I have experience de-icing aircraft with hot glycol. Hot water was used to remove wet snow not thick ice.

NW sage
Reply to  clipe
January 23, 2016 4:49 pm

I don’t think it is reasonable for us to expect that the windmill industry can or should learn from the experience of the aircraft industry. It is always better to spend (someone else’s) money to reinvent the wheel. [sarc]

Davidq
Reply to  clipe
January 23, 2016 6:06 pm

The article explains that they can deice down to -20C, or about 0F. They use high pressure and high flow rates to succeed.
Swedes know their engineering. They didn’t go out there and guess. They developed this, and figured out the cost. So, the numbers work. In addition, the crews watch the weather forecasts. They are not going to do this if it is going to ice up again. They get that.

Carl Friis-Hansen
January 23, 2016 4:10 pm

As Davidq says, they state the energy for deicing is compensated in two days production. The question is though for what Capacity Factor? At the moment is is really calm in Boden in Sweden, see DMI chart: http://www.dmi.dk/vejr/til-lands/byvejr/by/vis/SE/606531/Boden,%20Sverige/ where it looks like 1m/s for the next days.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 23, 2016 5:31 pm

the energy for deicing is compensated in two days production.
———————————
good thing they only have to de-ice them once a day! I thought for a moment there that they were losing money on the deal.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 23, 2016 5:42 pm

The *cost* of the deicing is equal to the value of two days’ power production.

ATheoK
Reply to  Magma
January 23, 2016 8:13 pm

Knowing the way wind power costs and earnings are counted; it is very likely that the 48 hours or production are counted by using consistent theoretical full power generation.
On another note; distribute free beer and Schnapps to any allegedly wind power advocates willing to show up in -20°C for their favorite intermittent power.
Distribute double beer and Schnapps to all disbelievers of the CAGW cause and their shallow beliefs in free energy.
That way, perhaps, they could collect and use certain excess human fluids and perhaps save the truck’s water heating expense.

MRW
January 23, 2016 4:14 pm

Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31 December 2015, global.
Caithness Windfarm Information Forum
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm
Can download a complete list of global accidents from this page, from 1980 to 12/31/2015. 175 pages. Contains description of what happened, where, and links to original story or authority.
Skim the descriptions of what happened for 2015.

Reply to  MRW
January 23, 2016 5:37 pm
Reply to  ferdberple
January 23, 2016 5:48 pm

These 250 kW turbines operated from 1987 to 2006 and were removed in 2012. They were replaced by 14 1.5 MW GE wind turbines 1.5 miles away that have been operating since 2007.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  ferdberple
January 23, 2016 10:23 pm

“Magma
January 23, 2016 at 5:48 pm
These 250 kW turbines operated from 1987 to 2006 and were removed in 2012.”
How much CO2 was emitted in their making? How much CO2 was emitted in their dismantling, removal and disposal? How much CO2 was “saved” during their lifetime?

Gunga Din
Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 1:51 pm

So 20 or so year lifespan for these “power plants”? Before ObamaRegs, what was the lifespan of coal fired power plant?

Auto
Reply to  MRW
January 24, 2016 10:04 am

MRW
A long list indeed. Many thanks.
In fairness it includes petty councillor in Llanfihangel not declaring a interest.
Also, the last fatality given was in May 2015.
Auto

January 23, 2016 4:16 pm

Dumping on renewables is sort of an odd thing to do here. Who cares? One frozen turbine in Sweden is not the sum total of the wind turbine industry around the world. Wind energy is actually now very cheap to produce. Intermittency is the main barrier to still overcome, but if electricity storage costs continue to drop then wind/solar plus smart grid plus energy storage will be cheaper than coal or nat gas power within 10-20 years just about everywhere.
Set aside the issue of AGW, which I agree with has a lot of problematic elements to the hypothesis. A world energy grid powered by non-fossil fuels will mean much less air pollution and much less money flowing to oil producers. Both are goods that are worth it alone IMO. I have solar and drive a hybrid, and do so because it saves me money, not to save the planet.
Over half the total new electric power generation capacity installed in 2015 came from renewables. We are in an energy transformation, and unsubsidized grid partiy is getting closer and closer.

Bear
Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 4:24 pm

Yup, solar and hybrids subsidized by the rest of us. Let’s see how you feel about your hybrid when you have to replace it’s batteries. The real reason for the new generation capability is “renewables” is because of politics not because they’re viable.

Reply to  Bear
January 23, 2016 8:16 pm

The subsidy works for me (to whatever extent hybrids are subsidized; they cost more). Two hybrids. Don’t give a rat’s about the Carbon. Sure do save gas. A good thing, because last time I checked there was no backup.

nottoobrite
Reply to  Bear
January 24, 2016 7:42 am

If we all had stockdoc’s mentality he world would be square.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Bear
January 24, 2016 8:03 am

A square world !!….that takes me back –

NW sage
Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 5:05 pm

“Renewables” or not, ANY intermittent power source cannot be relied on for base load power. Customers want the energy when they turn the switch (they are funny that way) and really don’t want to wait for the right amount of wind to blow or the sun to come up or the clouds to go away. Therefore ALL electric utilities MUST spend capital to make electricity during the non-sun, non-wind times. Fuel costs are a VERY small fraction of the total cost of providing electric service ‘on demand’.
Effectively, this means that capital expenses must be made for so called ‘non-renewable’ energy sources anyway and all renewables do is fractionally reduce the total energy costs charged to consumers. In other words, total ‘renewable’ capacity built in any given year simply doesn’t count!

Reply to  NW sage
January 23, 2016 5:49 pm

all renewables do is fractionally reduce the total energy costs charged to consumers.
================
in point of fact they do not. they significantly increase the energy costs charged to consumers because of the way the wholesale spot market works is in conflict with the guaranteed feed in tariffs. If renewables were to directly compete in the wholesale spot market like every other power producer, the problem would sort itself out in short order, as every renewable scheme would be immediately bankrupt.

Menicholas
Reply to  NW sage
January 24, 2016 6:12 pm

Who has the graph handy that shows cost vs percent of renewables installed, by country.
It is pretty clear, wind and solar drive up the cost of power, and not just a little.

clipe
Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 5:12 pm

“A world energy grid powered by non-fossil fuels will mean much less air pollution and much less money flowing to oil producers.”
When and how?
“Over half the total new electric power generation capacity installed in 2015 came from renewables. We are in an energy transformation, and unsubsidized grid partiy is getting closer and closer.”
What? Where?

Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 5:27 pm

Renewable and Clean ? – got a long way to go
In 2012, the wind business produced more toxic nuclear waste than the nuclear business –
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
Low-Carbon ?
Here’s an estimate (can’t confirm) of the CO2 generated in the construction of a bird beater (personally, I am a big fan of plant food) –
http://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/16/how-much-co2-gets-emitted-to-build-a-wind-turbine/

Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 5:44 pm

like hydro electric schemes
=================
hydro dams silt up. there is no renewable energy source on earth. they all have finite lifetimes. solar degrades. windmill bearings wear. everything has a lifetime.
renewable energy is like rechargeable batteries. in theory they are great. but how long do they last in your cell phone? evidently your cell phone is somehow different than a theory.

Reply to  ferdberple
January 23, 2016 8:25 pm

What is wrong with solar panels on your roof that charge your electric vehicle? Pretty efficient in my book. Local production. Local use. No (30%) transmission losses. Gotta keep that battery charged, but hey, you can run out of gs too.

Editor
Reply to  gymnosperm
January 23, 2016 8:43 pm

gymnosperm

What is wrong with solar panels on your roof that charge your electric vehicle? Pretty efficient in my book. Local production. Local use. No (30%) transmission losses. Gotta keep that battery charged, but hey, you can run out of gs too.

Few cars are at home (in most scenarios) to “hook up and charge” from the solar panels at home when the car is used for a commute to a distant parking lot during a normal work day.
Oh, and when a “city” tries to install only TWO “recharge” points in the city garage? Our local “city” tried that 2 years ago. Needed $25,000.00 dollars to but and install only TWO PLUGS. Now, how much gas can you buy for $25,000.00 dollars (NOT counting the electrical bills needed to PAY for that re-charging service) if the plug in receiver at one location costs $25,000.00?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 23, 2016 9:07 pm

Fair enough. Out here in California I see executives in their Teslas demanding electrical hookups at work so they can drive home. Imagine the Janitor demanding gas money for the drive home…That doesn’t work. It has to be in situations where the commute is limited to the charge range.

Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 5:49 pm

Chances are a whole wind farm would be affected. Do they have wind farms of one? Renewables? That’s a joke! Name one renewable that would be possible with out nonrenewables! Plastics, electronics, lubricants metal alloys. If we run out of oil there will be no more wind mills or solar panels.

Barbara
Reply to  Frank Jaeger
January 23, 2016 7:43 pm

String a whole bunch of pin-wheel/wind turbines together and expect to produce a reliable source of electricity. Can be done on paper but not in real life.
Wind farm/power plants exposed to the forces of nature. Transmission lines can also ice up and come down or be blown down.
Problem is you cant prove this until the turbines and lines are installed and don’t work. Something can only be proven after the fact and renewable energy developers know this.

Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 5:59 pm

and unsubsidized grid partiy is getting closer and closer. Just like the tourtoise and the hare.

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  tobias smit
January 24, 2016 9:25 am

More like Achilles and the Hare – great little Lewis Carroll math fable.
Taylor

chris moffatt
Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 6:06 pm

What does it mean “but if electricity storage costs continue to drop”? Costs are not dropping because there IS no such storage technology.
“…will be cheaper than coal or nat gas power within 10-20 years…”. Would that be the same twenty years that is going to give us LENR and commercial cold fusion? I thought so!

Admin
Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 7:50 pm

I’ve got no problem embracing technologies which make economic sense, I’d just rather wait until wind turbines make economic sense, before politicians rush off to spend my money to embrace them.

Menicholas
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 24, 2016 6:19 pm

Not even one little kissy kiss and huggy-poo?

Climate Heretic
Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 8:01 pm

“Intermittency is the main barrier to still overcome”, which is ironic, because you will never ever get over the intermittency of wind.
Regards
Climate Heretic

Menicholas
Reply to  Climate Heretic
January 24, 2016 6:21 pm

No, they have top men working on the problem of convincing the wind to blow reliably and at a constant speed.
Are you implying the wind is immune to reason and appeals to logic?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist level 7
Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 9:52 pm

Stockdoc77:

Over half the total new electric power generation capacity installed in 2015 came from renewables. We are in an energy transformation, and unsubsidized grid partiy is getting closer and closer.

Are we talking installed over the entire world or just the US? I would like to see a justification for this claim given that China and India are building coal-fired power stations at a pretty good clip. New generating capacity in those two countries dwarfs everyone else.

Menicholas
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist level 7
January 24, 2016 6:25 pm

In the US, regulations and subsidies have massively intervened to circumvent actual sound economic decisions, resulting in whatever the current (get it?) stats are.
Penalizing things that make sense and paying people to do things that do not is not exactly the same as making something profitable or sensible.
Not the last time I checked, anyways.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 10:24 pm

“Stockdoc77
January 23, 2016 at 4:16 pm
…will be cheaper than coal or nat gas power within 10-20 years…”
Like fusion, eh?

David Chappell
Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 24, 2016 1:19 am

“Over half the total new electric power generation capacity installed in 2015 came from renewables.”
And the rest was installed as back-up for the renewables. /sarc
The weasel words are “capacity installed” It will actually produce about 20% at best of its capacity.

T. Madigan
Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 24, 2016 5:34 am

Good on you, Stockdoc77! Thoughtful, sensible, insightful post but don’t look for a pat on the back here. Any positive aspect (to your post) will be turned on its head and inside out. Good try though and don’t give up! Keep doing what you’re doing because that *is* the solution. We can’t look to the various governments to solve this. It will come organically and internally, very much like what you’re doing. Again I say, good on you!

nottoobrite
Reply to  T. Madigan
January 24, 2016 7:46 am

T. Madigan
A founding member of the” flat earth society “

T. Madigan
Reply to  nottoobrite
January 24, 2016 7:53 am

@Stockdoc77: with this reply from @nottoobrite, I rest my case! Flat earth society, really! LOL, your moniker speaks volumes about you, quite accurately too, I might add. Cheers-exit laughing out loud! You made my day!

Marcus
Reply to  T. Madigan
January 24, 2016 8:29 am

…You want it, YOU pay for it !!

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 24, 2016 5:46 am

If it is so cheap how come
1) It needs to be subsidised ?
2) EON have just cancelled its major windfarm developments as being not viable without subsidies ?
The fact that we are no longer building enough power plants to replace capacity being retired is nothing to boast about.

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
January 24, 2016 8:16 pm

@ Keith, +many. This is not a joking matter, with the shut down of coal and natural gas fired plants and the restrictions on fracking this is going to be a disaster if it is not already. I wonder how Britain and other EU countries are going to do in the next year or so, the MSM everywhere is eerily silent on all of this.

Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 24, 2016 8:21 am

Stockdoc,
Yo’re ignoring the fact that windmill power is nuts. Well, for everyone but bureaucrats and windmill sellers.

Gunga Din
Reply to  dbstealey
January 24, 2016 2:06 pm

It might sound good. But is it good?
Keep the government out of it and let the market decide. (No false profits from government subsidies.)

Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 24, 2016 8:49 am

Since electric powered cars are used to drive to and from work they are used from 6AM to 8AM and 5PM and 7PM. Here at over 42 degrees North there is little sunshine from 8PM to 6AM for half the year. Realistically batteries cannot be charged from solar for commuting. Makes solar just a scam for cars. Figure snow on the panels, cloud cover, inefficiency of the panels and transmission/control losses of the system and you get pretty close to zero for solar energy input to commuting.
The poor performance of reasonably price hybrids can be duplicated by cutting horsepower and driving like a hybrid owner. Unsubsidized low performance, really small, gasoline powered cars would save more.
Teslas are fine but at what cost? Chevy volts don’t sell because they don’t function well.
Unless you have a really big roof and lots of lead-acid batteries in your basement you must charge off coal and nuclear since they are what carries the grid at the subject time.

Reply to  John H. Harmon
January 24, 2016 8:19 pm

@ John H Harman 8.49 am. And if you use batteries you better make sure they are deep cycle ones and those are not cheap!

Menicholas
Reply to  Stockdoc77
January 24, 2016 6:10 pm

I have thought about that hydrodam silt.
It should be dredged. Can it be used as topsoil, once dried out?
Maybe.

Golden
January 23, 2016 4:23 pm

At least someone had the foresight of keeping a helicopter around for de-icing. To get more power, each wind turbine should come with a helicopter. They can tie the rotor of the helicopter to the turbines.

AndyG55
January 23, 2016 4:25 pm

They’ll de-ice it, and it will freeze up again tomorrow. 🙂

Editor
Reply to  AndyG55
January 23, 2016 4:59 pm

Only if there are clouds or precip.
The photo shows rime ice, that’s from cloud droplets.

Davidq
Reply to  AndyG55
January 23, 2016 6:09 pm

The Swedes know this. They don’t deice if it is going to be a waste.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Davidq
January 24, 2016 4:39 am

Of course they know. But idling several days would also add to the 48 hours to make up for it.

Raven
Reply to  Davidq
January 24, 2016 7:10 am

But if you run the turbine for 48 hours to “make up for it” haven’t you just wasted / lost 48 hours of production time?
I mean . . there aren’t 367.25 days in a year.

Editor
Reply to  Davidq
January 24, 2016 8:48 am

The deicing doesn’t “make up” the cost. It allows power production for several days that would otherwise have been idle. (And remind the neighbors how nice life was without the incessant noise and infrasound from the damn turbines.)

Menicholas
Reply to  Davidq
January 24, 2016 6:28 pm

“I mean . . there aren’t 367.25 days in a year.”
Oh, I see what you did there!

Mike Smith
January 23, 2016 4:25 pm

I think they should make the turbine blades out of solar panels. The solar power so generate can operate heating coils placed along the length of the core of each blade. No more iced up turbines and the overall installation is double-green.
/sarc

Auto
Reply to  Mike Smith
January 24, 2016 11:17 am

Mike,
If I may refine your inspired idea a little further, to overcome those grey days, when there is no wind, nor any sunlight, the local unicorn farm will be contracted to deliver unicorn farts, for warmth, and methane [Natural Gas], which last can be used to power micro-generators for the warming of blades, de-icing of blade-mounted solar panels, etc.
Triple Green – no?
Auto
Mods – /sarc, hey?. Unicorns, like oryx, and most deer, appear unfarmable.

Menicholas
Reply to  Mike Smith
January 24, 2016 6:33 pm

Good point Auto!
They will need extra power to de-ice the solar panels which are attached to the blades and pylon. Or, someone can invent solar panels which are also structural steel members and lightweight wing material.
For that matter, once they invent those things, we can just build everything out of solar panels.
Did anyone read about the plan to make roads out of PV solar bricks/panels? What an idea…cars would just need a metal rod sticking down to touch the road to suck up power, just like those old racecar tracks we used to use as kids.
Wake me up when someone invents PV solar cells in a can of spray paint.

nc
January 23, 2016 4:28 pm

“and much less money flowing to oil producers” Are you happy that carbon trading is taking over from oil and gas? I am sure the trading will be all above board and honest. What does carbon trading do anyhow besides enrich middlemen? How about the vast amount of land being taken over by bird slicers

Golden
January 23, 2016 4:32 pm

I think they got this backwards. They should be building power plants to spin the windmills so they will cool the environment. /sarc

peyelut
January 23, 2016 4:35 pm

An alcohol fluid weep is a fairly low tech answer that has worked with wings and propellers. Applied successfully, it would do little to make windmills ‘smart’.

Reply to  peyelut
January 23, 2016 5:42 pm

Low altitude aircraft only. There is also the rubber boot leading edge expansion/contraction deicing technique. My father flew both prop types for USAF. They must work, since he died of old age rather than wing icing. Some great family stories.
Wind turbines apparently fly neither. Stupid renewables.

Alex
January 23, 2016 4:51 pm

They should use a plastic sleeve over each blade and pump it full of CO2.. Just need to keep an eye on it so they don’t damage the blades from the heat.

David
January 23, 2016 5:02 pm

For f***’s sake, could people please stop attributing any portentous/pretentious quote about the universe to Einstein? This one is not from any published work by Einstein. Unlike many ‘Einstein’ quotes it does at least have an identifiable second-hand source, but not a particularly reliable one.

NW sage
Reply to  David
January 23, 2016 5:07 pm

But it’s CUTE!

Reply to  David
January 23, 2016 5:38 pm

“I never said half the crap people claim I did on the Internet.” Albert Einstein

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Magma
January 23, 2016 5:51 pm

Pardon, but wasn’t it Abe Lincoln who said that?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Magma
January 23, 2016 6:32 pm

Some days…. that could be me.
(to compare very small with great).

Janice Moore
Reply to  Magma
January 23, 2016 6:33 pm

Okay, okay, OKAY, Knights and Brian H, “I.” It just sounds so snobbishly pedantic these days to use “I” instead of “me” that I’ve stopped using it in some contexts.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Magma
January 24, 2016 2:09 pm

I’m confident that Moses never said it.

Menicholas
Reply to  Magma
January 24, 2016 6:38 pm

I am pretty sure Einstein and Abe worked together to come up with that one.
They always did work well together, those two.

Reply to  Magma
January 24, 2016 8:39 pm

Alan Robertson
January 23, 2016 at 5:51 pm
Pardon, but wasn’t it Abe Lincoln who said that?
~~
No, he said, “The problem with the internet is it’s hard to determine the veracity of a statement. That’s how WWI started.” He said that in 1885.

Nylo
January 23, 2016 5:06 pm

They don’t de-ice the blades so much in order for them to produce again energy, as to stop them from being a dangerous weapon capable of throwing away huge blades of ice as they rotate again. They are possibly spending more money that they will produce with it, but they are potentially avoiding the need to pay huge compensations.

commieBob
Reply to  Nylo
January 23, 2016 7:16 pm

Exactly so. It has happened that a wind turbine has hurled javelins of ice at the public.

Menicholas
Reply to  commieBob
January 24, 2016 6:39 pm

In the future, wind turbine javelin throwing will be an Olympic sport.

R. Farrier
January 23, 2016 5:28 pm

In Vermont, Wind opposition is being made illegal without a law license, according to this article. Thought that it should be passed on.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/01/23/big-green-tyranny-vermont-signals-citizens-opposing-wind-energy-now-requires-license-to-practice-law/#sthash.3hkoAKgl.dpbs

Barbara
Reply to  R. Farrier
January 23, 2016 7:57 pm

And
‘Vermont’s Energy Siting Struggle Hits Crescendo’, Jan.21, 2016
What started as a letter from Rutland regarding a lack of local control over renewable energy siting has culminated in an 86-town strong “Vermont energy rebellion”.
http://www.watchdog.org/254581/vermonts-energy-siting-struggle-hits-crescendo/?preview_id=254581

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Barbara
January 23, 2016 9:53 pm

Wasn’t always, but Vermont’s a Blue state. Like everyone else, let’m learn from their suffering.

Janice Moore
Reply to  R. Farrier
January 23, 2016 8:03 pm

R. Farrier — HOW CREEPY.
I just read this today in the Carl Sandburg biography of Abraham Lincoln:

{c. 1837} In the Southern States it was against the law to speak against slavery… .

(Source: Abraham Lincoln — The Prairie Years and the War Years One-volume Edition, 1954, p. 53)

Editor
Reply to  R. Farrier
January 24, 2016 8:57 am

Well, not any old opposition, but helping abutters prepare challenges to PSB (Public Service Board) meetings, something she has done on her own time and not as a lawyer. The PSB issues or denies permits for the turbines and the hearing are run like a trial. New Hampshire has the same arrangement through the Site Evaluation Committee.
It appears the wind developers realized they can shut up Annette Smith by siccing the Attorney General’s office on her. She hasn’t been charged yet, but you don’t reply to a criminal investigation by the AG without spending money on lawyers.
I’ll be donating some money at https://www.gofundme.com/74kx663w
[“… helping abutters” ?? .mod]

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ric Werme
January 24, 2016 2:28 pm

[“… helping abutters” ?? .mod]
Hmm. Well, Baptist were originally called “Anabaptist” because they were against infant baptism. (The thinking being along the lines an infant couldn’t decide what they believed.) The “ana” meaning “against”. In Greek sometimes an “a” added to a word meant the opposite.
Perhaps he meant those that are against spewing the crap? 😎

Marcus
Reply to  Ric Werme
January 24, 2016 2:33 pm


abutter (redirected from abutters)
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal.
a·but (ə-bŭt′)
v. a·but·ted, a·but·ting, a·buts
v.intr.
To touch or end at one end or side; lie adjacent.
v.tr.
1. To border upon or end at; be next to.
2. To support as an abutment.
[Middle English abutten, from Old French abouter, to border on (a-, to from Latin ad-; see ad- + bouter, to strike; see bhau- in Indo-European roots) and from Old French abuter, to end at (from but, end; see butt4).]

Menicholas
Reply to  Ric Werme
January 24, 2016 6:42 pm

“Stop talking about my abutt!”
-Annette Smith

Gunga Din
Reply to  R. Farrier
January 24, 2016 2:17 pm

How long before opposition to “Green Crap” will be legally declared to be “Hate Crime”?

Reply to  R. Farrier
January 24, 2016 8:32 pm

@ R. Farrier, I wonder how many “elected” municipal councils have that requirement?

January 23, 2016 5:31 pm

You people are all confused about the meaning of this photo.
The whole point of erecting wind turbines was to put a stop to catastrophic atmospheric warming.
And this turbine has clearly become a victim of its own success.
If it wasn’t for wind turbines like this then children wouldn’t know what a helicopter de-icing a wind turbine was…
Wait a minute – now I’ve confused myself… 🙂

January 23, 2016 5:37 pm

Hilarious. The only problem is that the photo is from a test of a deicing system developed for wind turbines lacking integrated deicing systems, and was carried out in February 2014 at the Uljabuouda wind farm in northern Sweden just 40 miles south of the Arctic Circle.
Marc Morano failed to note this when he assembled a grab-bag of “gee it’s cold” links to reply to the warmest year on record announcement by NASA and the NOAA. I guess Marc doesn’t like extreme engineering either.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/vindkraft/article3877156.ece
http://windren.se/WW2015/WW2015_13_312_Gedda_Deicing_helicopter.pdf
http://winterwind.se/2012/download/5b_Rudholm.pdf

Reply to  Magma
January 23, 2016 5:47 pm

Sure. You are right.
So now provide the UK National Grid wind capacity factor for that year, or since. If you dare. I think you will dare not, since the numbers are horrible.

Reply to  ristvan
January 23, 2016 5:55 pm

Capacity factor of almost 26% in 2014. If you think that’s “horrible”, bear in mind the wind is free.

Reply to  ristvan
January 23, 2016 6:31 pm

Magma – oil and gas is also “FREE”, you just have to drill a hole in the ground to get all that “free” energy. Like WInd turbines – the wind is free but getting it is not. Which one produces the most concentrated economical energy?

Felix
Reply to  ristvan
January 23, 2016 7:34 pm

Wayne has forgotten about the costs of oil refineries, navies to defend shipping lanes, the War or Terror, and so on.

Janice Moore
Reply to  ristvan
January 23, 2016 7:41 pm

And Magma (and Felix, it appears) have forgotten that the cost of production, installation, and maintenance of a wind turbine are less than break-even BUT FOR tax and or traditional power customer rate surcharge subsidies.

Janice Moore
Reply to  ristvan
January 23, 2016 7:42 pm

GREATER “than break-even” (oh, brother)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  ristvan
January 23, 2016 10:30 pm

Felix and Magma forget that concrete, steel, electronics and plastics are required in wind and solar power systems and thus NOT free! They still need to be mined, refined and produced. All the times I have dug holes in the ground I have never ever found shrink-wrapped copper cables with terminators fitted! NEVAH!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  ristvan
January 23, 2016 10:56 pm

Correction, LOL! Not shrink-wrapped cables. Cables with plastic heat-shrunk (Heat-shrink – It’s really amazing stuff these days) insulation on them. Sheesh…I forget the technology sometimes.

Reply to  ristvan
January 26, 2016 4:04 am

Magma, you say “bear in mind the wind is free.” But by the same logic, petroleum is free also. It is in the harvesting and conversion of one form of energy into another that a cost is derived. Wind carries momentum that must be harvested and converted into electricity, just as petroleum has chemical energy that must be harvested and converted to electricity. This “wind is free” meme is pure nonsense, but you guys still use it since it fools the rubes. Wind may drive a sail boat, but the minute that ways to drive a ship with steam were invented was the minute that wind power of boats became untenable. Cabin cruisers might cost more to fuel than sail boats, but the sail makes it far more expensive still.

Reply to  Magma
January 23, 2016 5:52 pm

I would suggest not installing wind turbines where thy might get iced up – Sweden, Norway, Finland, New Hampshire, Montana, etc….

Ric Haldane
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
January 23, 2016 7:31 pm

I would agree that the wind is free, until you ask the wind to do some work. So off shore power only cost the consumer 300% (wholesale) more. I love Green Logic. If the consumers ever figure it out, they will be pissed. Well, those that have not frozen to death due to high rates.

Felix
Reply to  Magma
January 23, 2016 7:32 pm

Here is an English translation of the first link in Magma’s post.

January 23, 2016 5:37 pm

Somebody upthread seemed to want to tell me that wind is approaching grid parity.
Then can they explain to me why we in the UK are paying £150/MWh to offshore wind energy producers – when the current wholesale price is £50/MWh.
And we are large scale adopters. At what point do those promised economies of scale actually kick in.
Because – I’ve been waiting a long time. And three times the regular electricity price doesn’t look like approaching grid parity to me…

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
January 23, 2016 5:58 pm

we in the UK are paying £150/MWh to offshore wind energy producers – when the current wholesale price is £50/MWh
==========================
that would be your average wholesale price. When wind farms are producing your wholesale price probably drops to zero, or even goes negative. You end up paying £150/MWh for something that is worse less than nothing, Something similar to garbage, that other people would gladly pay you good money to simply take it off their hands.
And wind farms are not producing? Well your wholesale price probably jumps to a whole lot more than £150/MWh, and the baseline producers can take turns simply not producing and jack the prices up to the sky, and bleed the system dry. Because in the end the baseline producers now need to make their money when the wind doesn’t blow, which means they need to increase their prices to cover the times when the wind blows and they have to sit idle.
So it is a lose-lose for the taxpayer and consumer.

Reply to  ferdberple
January 24, 2016 3:46 am

Here in the UK frozen and broken wind turbines would not be such a bad thing.
Provided that they are listed as operational – then the operator could potentially receive a massive payment for NOT operating them.
Which is a win win, if you happen own a dysfunctional wind turbine, which you weren’t planning on operating anyway.
And a lose lose, if you happen to be a user of grid electricity in the UK.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/wind-farms-paid-53-million-to-switch-off-last-year/

Chip Javert
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
January 23, 2016 6:07 pm

indefatigablefrog
I’m uncertain how it works in the UK, but here in the colonies, it REALLY helps if you are an Obama donor. In fact, if reported incidents are accurate, it’s almost required.

Reply to  Chip Javert
January 24, 2016 3:58 am

Yeah, it’s more or less the same sort of situation here. Or possible much worse.
Here, the same people who can vote in parliament for legislation also head the companies that get the hand-outs.
The same people can even stand on enquiries that dismiss allegations of manipulation of data.
Not focusing on any one member of the house of lords, in particular:
“Climate sceptics questioned whether Lord Oxburgh, chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables, was truly independent because he led organisations that depended on climate change being seen as an urgent problem.”
http://www.thegwpf.com/lord-oxburgh-cru-inquiry-chairman-has-a-conflict-of-interest/#sthash.8TKw9EyO.dpuf

Rick C PE
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
January 23, 2016 6:39 pm

Easy, you can achieve grid parity by jacking up the cost of traditional sources (fossil fuel) with taxes, regulation, carbon surcharges, etc.

Reply to  Rick C PE
January 24, 2016 4:09 am

Yep – that’s clearly the plan.
To jack up the costs incurred by anyone trying to generate cheap conventional.
And to dish out heaps of free cash to anyone promising to create a renewables “miracle”.
In the end – the prices of the two will meet half-way.
Half-way between cheap and absurdly expensive.

Raven
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
January 24, 2016 7:36 am

Somebody upthread seemed to want to tell me that wind is approaching grid parity.

Oh, I thought it was a typo and he meant to type “grid parody” . . 😉

601nan
January 23, 2016 5:41 pm

Major Uh Oh.
The east coast storm has dumped several centimeters of snow on the E!Musk-SolarCity panels of home-roofs.
Problem 1) No electricity.
Problem 2) Extra weight on roof (roof designed and built in the ’60s – ’70s at sub-code standards.)
Problem 3) E!Musk High-Tech Super-Duper storage batteries at zero charge.
No worry, E!Musk “Industries” will still get their Federal and State subsides and E!Musk will still receive generous kick-back cash from State Governor’s Office and Federal Agencies.
Ha ha
PS E!Musk has Little Trouble in BIG Nevada!

hunter
Reply to  601nan
January 23, 2016 6:32 pm

I had forgotten how funny that movie is.
+10

Marcus
Reply to  601nan
January 23, 2016 8:09 pm

WTF ?????

Alan Robertson
January 23, 2016 5:47 pm

It’s important for the blades to slowly turn, in order to prevent brinelling of the turbine bearings and races. There is no known lubricant which can stay in place and provide a cushion between metal surfaces under such intense pressure, without constantly replenishing the squeezed- out lubricant, by rotating the blades.The damage increases with time, until the surface area of the indentation/bearing surface reaches equilibrium with the force causing the metal distortion. The turbine in the photo now has a diminished bearing life.