Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova – According to Professor Jack Ponton of Edinburgh University, an additional 16,000 wind turbines covering 90,000 square kilometres (35,000 square miles) will be required to charge Britain’s electric cars, if Britain converts to an all electric car fleet.
Wind farms would need to ‘cover whole of Scotland’ to power Britain’s electric vehicles
SCOTLAND would need to be entirely covered by wind farms in order to power all of Britain’s electric cars, according to a leading academic.
By PAULA MURRAY, EXCLUSIVE
PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sun, Oct 29, 2017
Jack Ponton, emeritus professor of engineering at Edinburgh University, said another 16,000 turbines would be required in order to replace petrol and diesel cars with electric vehicles.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has pledged to phase out the internal combustion engine by 2032 – eight years ahead of the rest of the UK.
But Prof Ponton said that, even if the issues of power generation and charging points were sorted out, the National Grid could simply not cope with the increased demand.
He said: “It is a nice idea as electric cars are much more efficient, cleaner and actually simpler devices than the current internal combustion engine vehicles.
“Technically, it is an excellent idea. But the problem starts when you begin to think, ‘Where are you going to get the energy to run them?’.
“I’ve seen three different estimates for the amount of new generating capacity that we would need if were going to have all the cars in Britain running on electricity.
“The most detailed calculation says we’d be looking at five Hinkley nuclear stations to run this. It would be the best way, the most efficient way to get electricity because nuclear power stations can run 90 per cent of the time.
“If you want to do this with wind turbines, you are talking about 16,000 more wind turbines, four times as many as we have at the moment, and I’ve estimated that would occupy some 90,000 square kilometres, which is approximately the size of Scotland.”
…
This isn’t the first time British academics have run the numbers and demonstrated that renewables are utterly impractical. Back in 2008, Professor David J C MacKay of the Cambridge University Department of Physics, who also holds a PHD in computation from Caltech, upset advocates by running a few numbers and demonstrating how ridiculously inadequate renewables are to the task of powering Britain.
The renewables juggernaut rolls on regardless. Years from now, historians will marvel at how such eyewatering sums of public money were squandered on such a useless energy solution, and how people who claim they care about nature were seduced into covering the landscape with bird and bat killing industrial monstrosities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO5LjgIEofg
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Died in vane. For Global Warming HOAX.
The environmental damage isn’t funny, but your pun is.
30,000 square miles is 19.2 million acres, the exact size of the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
G
Sadly there is a units issue or journalistic enhancement going onhere. The original quote in the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/news/which-bright-sparks-came-up-with-this-ridiculous-proposal-1-4524452
stated an area required of 19000km which is 1/4 the area of Scotland.
Still significant and still made good points about where the extra power comes from.
On-shore wind turbines are a dying breed in the UK. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/10/30/new-onshore-wind-capacity-dries-up-as-subsidies-end/#more-30606
I have an idea.
Why not put a windmill on every electric car and let them generate their own electricity.
Just think, when the car gets up speed, the windmill would rotate faster and further change the batteries. Or maybe substitute the windmill with a wing sail and let every car have an America Cup performance!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Just do it the Fred Flintstone way:
Someone I was once in discussion with about climate change suggested to do this with aircraft. I am serial!
Why not provide a generator for every home so people can run it to charge the cars overnight, and use all the spare petrol to run the generators!
Have you ever heard of domestic photovoltaic power generation? They are quite common here in the UK. You can actually use the power generated to charge your car batteries in the day time. Will wonders never cease?
Ah yes, Sunny London where you will have a whopping 9:40 of sunshine tomorrow and the sun will be 24° above the horizon at noon. Well, fortunately you can take the tube to work or school because your car will be home charging. Or did you leave oute the /sarc tag?
Except, Gareth, my car is with me at work during the day. You know – work. That place most people go just about every day to earn a living. But maybe you don’t know anything about that…
Believe it or not, there is actually a small wind turbine you can get for your car. You stick it out the window when going down the highway. It generates a small amount of power for your electronic devices. Somehow, idiots think this is using less energy than getting the power out of their auxiliary power socket, thus saving gas.
A few years ago I saw an add for a solar powered fan that you could stick in your car’s window when parked.
Wish I had bought one at the time. I don’t remember how much they cost.
Soalr Fan at Walmart $11.85 free shipping…
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Solar-Power-Car-Window-Fan-Auto-Ventilator-Cooler-Air-Vent-Vehicle-Ventilation/547267422
[?? Those fans blow air through the car to cool it while parked. A true windmill-driven solar-powered car would use the solar panel to drive the fan to drive the wind turbine to recharge the battery. .mod]
@Yirgach
Does it work with tinted glass? Do you need one for every window? Is the interior frozen stiff when they operate at full power? No? One more of these gotogarbage gadgets then…
No wind today or yesterday, so car batteries can’t recharge. Time to take a day off as can’t get to work!
Exactly. Under current green schemes there would be times when peoples homes and factories were unheated and dark because of unreliable “renewable” power supply. This “improvement” would mean that their cars wouldn’t move either. They still just don’t get it.
don’t forget to point the headlights at the solar cells. You can save even more energy that way.
“Why not put a windmill on every electric car and let them generate their own electricity.”
It’s been done. Again, China is leading the way!
There will be a fair number of politicians who will claim that they never had anything to do with renewables, just like western politicians and eugenics after WWII.
As election time approaches, the rats are already moving in that direction. A politician that said “All of the above energy types” walks it back to “I’m pro oil and coal” because the state he allegedly represents is energy based. He voted for virtually every handout to wind there is every time one came up. Unfortunately, the state is probably stupid enought to reelect the lying twit. We get what we deserve, I guess. People want misery and vote for it over and over again.
Just another bit of reality that the MSM will resist covering.
The Daily Express, where the story comes from, is very much part of the MSM.
(though it also regularly posits that Princess Diana was assasinated)
Yeah sure Griff it was reported in Guardian it would be the truth. Perhaps you should fact check “Griff + Charlatan”
This is likely to be a vast underestimate of the amount of wind turbines required, given the intermittent and non despatchable nature of wind.
The intermittency of wind means that you can never rely on this as a source of energy. The mathermatics is simple: when you have no wind it doesn’t matter whether you have one windmill or an infinity of windmills you still get no electricity!
I agree, but their argument is that the wind always blows somewhere.
That might be true, but somewhere can be a very very long way away, and there may even be no interconnect.
It would appear that these guys did not learn from the two winters of 2009/10 and 2010/11 when a blocking high was sitting over the UK, and there was all but no wind for approximately 4 weeks. During this period, for the main part, wind produced less than about 8% of its nameplate capacity. But heck, the UK grinds to a halt when there is snow, so there will be no demand (or little demand) for cars, and of course, EVs perform badly in cold conditions (high demand on the battery, and battery performance is weaker in cold conditions). It has all been sussed out.
I agree. You have no electricity when ther is no wind. You also have no electricity when the wind is blowing too hard. The power of the wind goes up as the cube of the wind speed. A gentle zephyr quickly becomes a turbine destroying, raging monster.
The wind is always blowing somewhere, means we have to put turbines everywhere, in order to catch it.
MarkW: Well said. I think I’ll appropriate your observation for future discussions.
Yes, and where it IS blowing will want to use the electricity generated. It is unlikely that there will be enough to share out around all the non-windy places.
SteveT
No wind? Too much wind? A new business for the insurance wallahs: The Stormy Doldrums Underwriters are glad to accept any of these risks.
Well at least academics are beginning to speak up. Their employers used to muzzle them. Even the most ridiculous statements by proponents were not challenged by cowed acads who were otherwise sane. It does say something about the kind of compromised life they are prepared to live. Few Soltzhenitsens or Sakharovs walking the halls of the once proud institutions of learning. Trump seems to be emboldening a few.
He’s an emeritus, right?
…and all that elec is free too
One wonders when all of this wind turbine insanity will die and the monsters will be taken down.
But it will cost a fortune to do so, and the concrete foundation blocks may be left in place to pollute the surrounding soil (the concrete leaches substances that change the pH and so affect native pH sensitive plants). Unlike nuclear generation decommissioning costs are not included in any costing for wind and solar generation.
One has to wonder what ‘native’ plant this dude is smoking.
Concrete is insoluble which is why we use it as a building material.
In the nuclear industry we look what happens to materials over the long term and locally after an accident such as pipe break. The NRC asked a question, I said no problem because the material was insoluble. The NRC found in one of our tests that we got 50 ppm. I said yes that’s right it is insoluble. We agree on a change in my wording from no problem to no significant problem.
If you understand second order differential equations, you can understand that mixing high level waste from spent fuel into glass protects the environment. The radioactive material decays faster than it leaches from glass.
Nuclear power has decommissioning costs because we do not want children playing with highly radioactive material.
I am not too worried about plants.
Those foundation blocks would make nice foundations for new houses once the towers are gone. The wind farm owners can then do some construction that might actually be useful. House and view packages.
You need to know a bit more about concrete, and learn how to spell “leak”.
Info on lime leaching from concrete here:
http://www.concrete.org.uk/fingertips-nuggets.asp?cmd=display&id=520
Or here
http://lup.lub.lu.se/search/ws/files/4827018/1766469.pdf
When power produced with natural gas is too cheap to meter.
I have seen thousand of modern wind turbines and not one monster.
You can’t see that horrible toothy grin on the nacelles? Really.
I expect it will die off with in a decade or so. But first they want to ruin the face of the planet. Then people will see what happened.
Only the sodding SNP would make insane claims like replacing all ICE cars with electric ones, well, them and the rest of the UK’s Conservative government.
Seriously, what are they all dreaming about other than getting re elected on a green ticket. Sturgeon is as mad as her predecessor, Salmond.
Nor is this revelation news, as the article says, the late David MaCkay pointed this out long ago, and he was a self confessed green. But just highlight the insanity of all this bunkum, Matt Ridley did a nice article on it and the number of wind turbines required by the world simply to deal with the 2% growth in continuing energy demand is utterly staggering. It doesn’t, of course, include replacing the existing energy network; the numbers then get truly insane.
“WIND IS AN IRRELEVANCE TO THE ENERGY AND CLIMATE DEBATE” http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/wind-still-making-zero-energy/
We sceptics are living amongst fools.
Fossil fools.
The Reverend Badger
Sadly, my misspent youth means I have access to some terms not nearly as poetic as yours.
90,000 square kilometres. That’s bigger than Portugal
Perhaps it’s time to make life size slot cars
Those big windmills juxtaposed against tiny houses remind me of the Martian invaders in “The War of the Worlds”
16,000 wind turbines covering 90,000 square kilometres
??? 2 square miles (8 sq km) per turbine?
Turbines have a significant wind shadow, presumably that formed part of the professor’s calculations. The more you pack in, the more wind shadow of other turbines hits output.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130516-wind-energy-shadow-effect/
I count 11 in the picture you show. It doesn’t look like a 22 sq mile patch.
All in a horizontal row.
Here is a picture of part of Whitelee, near Glasgow. Sure doesn’t look like 8 sq km/turbine. Wiki says they have 215 turbines on 55 sq km, and are looking to pack a lot more in. That’s about 4 per sq km, not one every 8 km.
Eric,
That is an image of the Horns Rev 1 farm. The square array has spacing of 560m between turbines. About 4 per sq km. Of course, land space is more at a premium than sea space.
How much depth can you get before those pretty swirly vortices mess up your steady wind Nick? Before you need real spacing?
If you plan to cover all of Scotland, you need a lot of turbine depth.
This is London Array
http://www.machinery-market.co.uk/images/news/3130.jpg
The turbines are placed 650m to 1,200m apart. Source: http://www.londonarray.com/the-project-3/key-facts/
To a depth of what – 4 turbines? Do you really think you can keep adding rows of turbines indefinitely at that density? Or do you maybe have to leave some gaps?
I notice that Nick does not question the 16000 figure !
“Nick does not question the 16000 figure”
No. It sems reasonable. As I noted, UK has 8000 already.
Eric,
The Horn Rev array is 8 x 10. The vortices are notable in that pic because the wind is perfectly aligned. Mostly it won’t be. But anyway, shed vortices don’t reduce the energy of the oncoming wind much.
Nick, the more you get, the further the average spacing has to be.
Nick you always go on at people for not doing basic reading, do your own. The two numbers you need are
1.) How many MW per square KM can wind generate .. use you own number
160MW from 19 square KM
2.) How much energy do cars in UK currently use
http://euanmearns.com/how-much-more-electricity-do-we-need-to-go-to-100-electric-vehicles/
Now you do the maths yourself.
How far apart do wind turbines need to be? The rule of thumb is 3 to 5 rotor diameters across the wind (N-S in most of the US) and that the rows need to be 5 to 7 rotor diameters apart. The rotor diameter of the large modern turbines is 200 meters. I would guess that they need to be spaced about 0.5 km N-S and 1 km E-W. You would need 8,000 sq. km for 16,000 turbines.Its only 10% of the land area of Scotland.
When covering a large area (like Scotland) there would be large areas like valleys where there would be little if any value in putting a wind turbine. That is what inflates the area figure.
And the fact that they cannot be built near homes, roads, railways etc.
Nick,
perhaps you should read the good professors paper instead if idly speculating.
Paper? Is there a link?
The ANTI-ENVIRONMENT Nick Stokes , for all to see.
Doesn’t give ONE SINGLE STUFF about anything except this MINDLESS anti-CO2 agenda.
According to Wiki, the UK already has 8023 wind turbines. And although they are certainly visible, I don’t think they are taking up 45,000 sq km.
What do the cars do when the wind isn’t blowing – day off work perhaps?
It would be a great day for cycling.
Weather in Britain can be life threateningly cold Nick. You don’t cycle in such weather.
Not everyone has the ability to cycle 10 to 20 miles per day. Or the time.
Nick,
I wonder how many of those existing 8000 UK turbines are of the size of those in the picture. Some are surely smaller; perhaps a great many of them are. I only point this out because the additional 16,000 needed are the large beasts. So saying, “there’s already 8,000 there, what’s another 16,000” is extremely misleading.
Nick
I’m guessing here, but I would assume the Prof has factored in that you cannot put turbines in all sorts of places, like built up areas, forested places, low lying/sheltered, and so on.
Therefore, incl those areas, you would need 90,000 sq km to fit in 16000 wind turbines, though physically they would take up much less space themselves
You also need to look at the topography of Scotland – lots of hills, mountains and valleys – very stratified land and many places in natural wind shadow – i.e. wind will never come from more than a narrow part of the compass.
Nick you are forgetting the intake duct and exhaust duct that is needed for a windmill farm.
You need a huge unimpeded area in front of the wind farm, and an equally big or bigger exhaust area, for the exhaust.
It’s a “gas turbine” engine. You can’t obstruct the input or ouput areas. with any construction for other uses.
G
Fact checking the easy way: 90,000 / 16,000 = 5.625 on my planet
Where do you inhabit?
Perhaps I haven’t adjusted my calculation enough – if you have a suggested formula I’d love to see it.
SteveT
2 sq miles convert to 2,588 sq km. But, afaik there is a legal limit in how dense the chopping asparagus stems may be packed and the minimum distance they must have from populated areas or houses. Although that number of 90k sq km seems high, it is not improbable.
1 sq mile converts to 2.588 sq km…
Non Nomen
No, there is no “legal” limit for the distance between windmills, but some locations (very few, unfortunately) set restrictions on how far the new windmills need to be from houses and schools. But, usually, the “glamor” of the windmill industry overrides everything, and they take the landscape for the remote tax-supported political donor company regardless of the local resistance. And, of course, until the things are built, nobody locally feels the problems. After they’re built, nobody remote from the windmills cares. They got their tax-break and their construction bonus/subsidy, now move on and do it again.
However, there is a physics reason that ever-more area is required. For small towers it was thought 7 diameters between windmills was enough to avoid resonances and trubulence from the next tower upwind. After many failed due to swirls and stalling of the blades, that distance was moved to 10 diameters minimum. At the same time, the blade diameters got much, much larger as smaller towers and smaller blades proved inefficient – inefficient even by windmill standards.
Now, 10 diameters for a windmill distance is too small, and 15 is the new standard so the newest huge blades can rotate in stable, steady air. The result is that today’s fewer but much larger 2-5 Megawatt turbines need just about the same ground area as yesterday’s 0.25 to 1 MegaWatt wind farms.
@ur momisugly RACookPE1978
Sorry, it wasn’t clear I was referring to standards in Europe. You do have considerable molestations from wind turbines as sound/noise, reflection of sun/light, animal life and disputable unesthetical landscapes plus serious safety issues in the vicinity of airfields. So, mostly local, councils set up the rules they think adequate for that particular situation their community is in. These rules were often and still are disputed in court and only some minima became some sort of standard. Unfortunately, the subsidies handed out by various government, be it federal or state, are far too attractive to stop these greedy turbine builders. If necessary, generous compensation is handed over to local councils and that’s that, then.
In short the Brits are bound and determined to destroy all scenic views in the United Kingdom. They don’t need any foreign tourists anyway apparently.
Since I live in the US let me predict where you will find a BEV in 3032 in the US.
On a golf course, in a museum, collecting dust.
Eric W must spend his days searching the internet for silly attention grabbing quotes.
The only good reason to adopt BEV is for short commutes in a country with no fossil fuel resources and a heavy reliance on nuclear power. South Korea cones to mind.
I have estimated that one large nuke would be needed for every million BEV. South Korea can build new nuke faster and better than anyone I can think of but getting and keeping a million BEV on the road is just a pipe dream.
Here is an interesting article about the cost of importing fossil fuel in South Korea. https://www.reuters.com/article/south-korea-coal/s-korea-set-for-record-coal-imports-on-nuclear-outages-as-winter-looms-idUSL4N1N5234
South Korea’s road system has to be seen to be believed, you can get pretty much anywhere most of the way on a 6 lane+ tollway. They love their cars.
And where is the UN Climate (“Green”) Fund located? In South Korea:
http://www.greenclimate.fund/who-we-are/secretariat
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
Now think of what it would take to power a hundred million electric cars in the United States.
By 2050 it will likely be closer to 300,000,000. Even more if you factor in Trucks, Busses, Ambulances, Fire Trucks, Police Cars, Motor homes, Airplanes, Jets, Motorcycles, etc..
Aerodynamic research suggests 10-15 rotor diameters apart for optimum performance, i.e. less mechanical interference.
mechanical? you mean they can hit one another if they are closer than 10 rotor diameters?
???
Do you mean aerodynamic?
OK, but Prof Polton thinks one every 8 sq km; must be long blades.
Yep Nick.. let’s just pack ’em in. !!
http://www.ifoxwind.com/images/Repowering%201.jpg
And if we leave them a while,they can be like this
http://cdn2-www.webecoist.momtastic.com/assets/uploads/2009/05/tehachapi-wind-turbines-p1.jpg
How beautiful, not!
http://c1.vgtstatic.com/pic/2764.jpg
Look at the modern trees Daddy!
Oh Beautiful for crowded skies, dead birds and bats in glades,
For blighted mountain’s majesty below the Wind Mill’s blades,
America, America we’ll cover all of thee
And drown thy Dells with Solar Cells from sea to shining sea
Lets not forget that each turbine behind the first receives “dirty wind”, and each turbine behind it receives less wind and so on…
You were told earlier what factors drive the area scaling. Your reading comprehension matches your physical intuition – both are rudimentary.
andy, that first pic is surely photoshopped or manipulated.
and we haven’t built any turbines like those in your second shot since the 1980s.
In places like the EU/UK you have to provide for taking them down before they’ll let you put them up (the first offshore wind farm was dismantled this year after its planned 25 year life)
Nick you accuse everyone else of not reading or doing basic research and you can’t even get the number right. Last I did mathematics 90,000 sq km divided by 16,000 is 5.6 sq Km. Real Skeptic was a little better at least he gave 6 and Griff no doubt fact checked it (Yeah ok probably not).
Now this is an error in the printed story and it isn’t from the professor and lets give you a hint 5.6Km … 560m.
So lets see who can work out what the print error is first since you are all so good at fact checks.
If Nick had half a brain he would be able to work out the print error because he knows where he got the 560m number from.
LdB,
“Now this is an error in the printed story and it isn’t from the professor and lets give you a hint 5.6Km … 560m.”
Yes, it should be 5.6 km^2, not 8 (though 2 sq mi was about right). But I don’t get that hint. 560 m is the linear spacing in the Horn Rev array. It wasn’t a small issue though. The “big as Scotland” is the headline and leadin of the story, and it quotes the prof directly. And it seems at least an order of magnitude too high.
For Nick:
So just do the obvious Power/Area and use Horns to check
Horns:
160MW at 30% factor = 48MW
Area (5 km x 3.8 km) = 19 sqkm
Power MW per square km = 48/19 = 2.52 (Makes sense we said 2MW/SqKm)
Turbines 80 (10 x 8)
Power per turbine = 0.6MW
Turbines per square km = 2.52/0.6 = 4
Spacing on turbines = 500m (0.25 sqkm per turbine)
Proposed
24GW = 24000 MW
Area to generate 24GW = 24000/2.52 = 9523 square km (Out by 10)
Turbines required = 9523 sqkm * 4 turbines per sqkm = 38000 (twice quoted)
To get 160000 turbines each turbine must be bigger x2.375
Power per turbine = 0.6MW * 2.375 = 1.425MW
Turbines per square km = 2.52 / 1.425 = 1.76
Spacing on turbines = 753m (0.567 sqkm per turbine)
So easy to see the power numbers make sense the area is out by a factor of 10 …. QED
Additional Tehachapi images
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22TEHACHAPI+WIND+TURBINES%22&lr=&hl=en&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=Mow26pAZ4FN1LM%253A%252CGA2YMdYp0TSGIM%252C_&usg=__ZiiG3vg4-3DD6GtY8RPBFdZsrbE%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuyday5ZvXAhWjjFQKHVwFC8cQ9QEIMjAF#imgrc=_&spf=1509484895861
Dark satanic mills.
Is there a ratio? “16,000 wind-turbines” to power how many electric cars? Say a gallon of gasoline = 34 kWh, or diesel = 38 kWh, how much “fuel” expressed in gallon-equivalent does one of these monster wind-turbines produce in an average month? Like if a small community were to consider investing in wind power, they would do it if they needed to buy 3, but wouldn’t if they needed to buy 30. Meaningful numbers can be used to make comparisons…that was a joke!
Ah someone is thinking and trying to do the calculation. Here is one set of values the UK average car km/day looks high to me but start there.
50GW at 2MW per turbine = 25000 turbines
“an additional 16,000 wind turbines covering 90,000 square kilometres”
One turbine per 6 km2? seems a not as dense as what I see driving across the states.
And the land can be used for anything, I mean, under the turbine. Cows, sheep, cheap housing…
But not raising birds!
chickens.
“cheap housing…”
Off you go, totallygullible….. cheap housing… I BET you wouldn’t go and live there.
Inner city latte ghetto for you, correct.. Fossil fuel heating in winter.
fossil fuel air-con in summer…. all the mod-CONs.
You didn’t read the first word you copied: it was “cheap”
But you tend not to do any of that serious “thinking” stuff, do you?
rs is a bit off his feed today. I mean, letting slip his real attitude about the peasantry?
Well, AndyG65 is not doing you guys any favors with his mindless trolling.
Only mindless troll here is you, totallygullible..
You just don’t like being called on it. 😉
It is noted that you don’t deny your inner-city ghetto living with all the fossil fuel electricity amenities.
Chickens live in cheep housing
reallyGullible calling other people trolls. The irony abounds with this one.
Of course him telling other people to think was equally ironic.
These turbines have a safety zone, you certainly can’t build a house there….
I think the main risk is from throwing a big icicle, IIRC, or a blade.
Maybe greenies wouldn’t mind living close to the turbines (the ones that don’t mind the hum). Win-win?
Ever heard of infrasound….?
Cheap housing because the value of the real estate is close to zero (okay, not totally, but property values dive). Great idea. More government spending for substandard living areas.
And I understand Trump has some property up in Scotland that might be used…
Typical socialist. Giving away other people’s property.
As a golf course. Scotland taught Trump how vile the wind industry is. We thank them for it, though it doesn’t seem to have taken enough ending the blight in the USA.
Book smart, but not street smart. That is why otherwise intelligent people do such stupid things. No common sense.
Greed plays a big part.
Energy Regulation Quarterly (ERQ), November 2016
‘An Overview Of Various Provincial Climate Change Plans Across Canada And Their Impact On Renewable Energy Generation’
Once laws and/or regulations are put in place for renewable energy, this creates a market for wind and solar. This has happened across North America as well.
This is governments at work to create markets for renewable energy and not about science/engineering.
http://www.energyregulationquarterly.ca/articles/an-overview-of-various-provincial-climate-change-policies-across-canada-and-their-impact-on-renewable-energy-generation
State of Montana, November 19, 2007
Letter to Governors and Premiers
Re: Western Climate Initiative / WCI
Adoption of state EPS 15% of renewable energy by 2015 for Montana.
http://formergovernors.mt.gov/schweitzer/brian/wci112007.pdf
Begin with small percentages of renewable energy mandates and then increase these percentages over future years.
Quebec
The Carbon Market
Western Climate Initiative: Between States and Provinces
Re: Use of regulations
Timeline: 2008-2013
http://www.mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/changements/carbone/WCI-en.htm
Electric vehicles are fine as long as they are recharged with electricity that is generated by fossil fuels. (preferably coal). To the extent transportation electrification results in a decrease on CO2 emissions it will increase hunger, malnutrition and starvation because it will reduce agricultural productivity to a level below that which it would be in the absence of the decarbonization. This targets only the very poorest of the world’s people. This is hardly the sort of “virtue” that civilized people want to signal.
When I see pictures of wind turbines like the one that accompanies this article, I don’t just see eyesore inducing bird blenders. I imagine a horror movie “The Pinwheels of Death”.
“it will increase hunger, malnutrition and starvation because it will reduce agricultural productivity to a level below that which it would be in the absence of the decarbonization”
Why? because you can not drive your electric tractor over a field?
CO2 is what plants eat. less CO2 = less food
Trulygullible doesn’t realise that ALL food comes from CO2.
He thinks CO2 is an atmospheric pollutant or poison..
Chris Riley says “CO2 is what plants eat. less CO2 = less food”
Wow. And we have a problem with not enuf CO2 now?
NOT.
We have enough CO2 to keep everyone on this site well fed. We do not have enough CO2 to properly feed the little girl in sub Saharan Africa who went to bed without dinner last night with no dinner and will walk to school with no breakfast this morning. I am far more concerned with the interests of the little girl than I am with the egos of first world collectivist “virtue” signalers such as reallyskeptical who want to spend my money on insane projects such as covering Scotland with the pinwheels of death.
Yes we do. The optimum for the current mix of plants is about three times the current concentration. Just the increase we’ve had in the last half century or so is responsible for about 15-20% increase in greenery.
“And we have a problem with not enuf CO2 now”
Most certainly we DO have a problem with NOT ENOUGH CO2
Are you REALLY that ignorant that you don’t know enough biology to figure out that current levels of CO2 are only a small amount subsistence level.
WHY do you HATE plant life so much ?
What a putrid mind you must have to deliberately STARVE the very thing that gives to ALL life on Earth.
reallyGullible, as has been pointed out many, many times. Greenhouses increase CO2 levels to between 1000 and 1500 ppm.
Your belief that we have enough CO2 in the atmosphere already is refuted by reality.
There are places where they cannot farm within 300 ft of the turbines due to ice throw and the potential for blade breakage. Farmers lost large sections of land they were not told would be lost. The “you can farm all around these” isn’t really true.
Sheri, think for a minute. Why would “ice throw” prevent a farmer from raising crops? Did you know that crops usually don’t grow when it is cold enough for ice to form on a turbine blade? For example, you will not find corn growing in Iowa in the middle of January.
Rob: It doesn’t keep farmers from growing crops, but it makes a three-hundred foot circle around the turbine off-limits year round. Ice throw doesn’t reduce crop production, but it does mean the 300 ft zone is in effect year round.
Texan cattle disrespect the “300 foot zone.” They ignore it.
Sheri:
Rob: Yes, you can let your cows under the turbines. If ice drops and kills the cow, it’s your problem. I give up trying to explain. No matter how much I document, explain, etc you will still consider 300 feet of land no longer available for its original use no big deal. Apparently, you don’t farm or you got a huge handout to “host” the monstrosities. Otherwise, I think you’d understand. Maybe not. Anyway, forget it.
Sheri: No matter how much I document………
….
???
…
Document? I don’t see your documentation???
“I think the main risk is from throwing a big icicle, IIRC, or a blade.
Maybe greenies wouldn’t mind living close to the turbines (the ones that don’t mind the hum). Win-win?”
Or “The Whirligigs of Woe.”
Greenies don’t live next to the monstrosities or they probably would withdraw their support. Ranchers often love the turbines for the 5 figure “rental” fees and the rancher doesn’t actually live on the ranch, but in town. It’s surprising how many ranchers don’t really live on their ranches. They just hire workers to live there.
Chris Riley: I suppose you think the South American rainforests can’t be sustained without coal and oil burning industry? Or that the 70% of the worlds oceans are stealing CO2 from the atmosphere in order to starve the children? Can you identify a study that shows that less than 400 ppm CO2 concentrations are somehow preventing crops from growing? Warming oceans (and coal burning power plants) cause more cloud cover, which prevents sunlight from reaching crops – which has a MUCH larger inpact that changing from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.
Building five new nuclear reactors is a much better idea than putting up 16,000 additional windmills.
It’s a no-brainer.
Except politically.
The Greenies-of-death are not going to be a political force for much longer. It is now apparent to everyone with more than a single neuron that their intent is nothing less than the termination of all multicellular life on the planet with the grizzly deathscape leered over by billions of whirling mechanical monstrosities.
This is what happens when ignorant people and their insane ideologies are allowed to rule unchecked. The Greens now resemble the Dark Lord Sauron and his hosts of orcs attempting to cover all the lands in darkness. With the obvious exception that they die along with everyone else.
“Except politically.”
I agree! The real answer would be to build five big splendid coal-fired power stations. The electricity would be cheaper (very good politically) , no radioactive waste or melt-downs to worry about and the farmers will be delighted with all that free CO2 fertiliser wafting over their fields. Cheaper food! What’s there not to like!
Which TA are you, now that there are two of you.
Well, I think I am the original TA, at least for the last few years on WUWT. I don’t know what happened to the other person who used “TA” a few days ago, and as far as I know, that person only made one post. Perhaps they decided to choose another handle after seeing my comment.
In Australia, they should just build a new HELE coal fired power station in each of the 3 main eastern states.
Sensible, practical, and politically a massive WINNER, except for the yelping of the far left ABC.
Now, if only the stupid leftist politicians in the Turnbull Party would wake up to reality !
Please just one opportunistic politician listen to Andy and take the landslide victory!
We have a thousand year + reserve of brown coal in Victoria alone.
Electricity could be free up to the first 100 kWh no kidding.
Thereafter 12c/kWh for domestic and 6c/kWh for industry (similar to China).
Australian’s are certifiably insane and I’m surrounded by them.
As long as any candidate is not a dual citizen. How section 44 cannot have been checked on MP’s who have been in Govn’ for 9 years, that’s 3 terms, is crazy. But politicians are the best criminals anyway.
Ayrshire; get off my land!
http://www.blairestate.com/
Well not really . . .
Just sayin
Nick, your analysis on such numbers? Please feel free to use 2016 data.,
Then this , which has disappeared from the talking points over the years?
Ya think?
http://news.mit.edu/2010/climate-wind-0312
ossqss
How many models can he shoehorn into a single study?
I’m inclined to believe that massed ranks of wind turbines on land or sea would cause disruption but quantifying it like he has is nothing more than guesswork, on a laptop, to add credibility………….
Great. Windmills can cause climate change, but CO2 doesn’t? Anyone see the irony in WUWT advocating that windmills will change the climate?
Probably didn’t get supported in any subsequent studies, that’s why it fell off the discussion maps.