wind turbine wilderness devastation. Source ABC, Fair Use, Low Resolution Image to Identify the Subject.

Aussie Eco-Warrior Fury over Wind Farm Wilderness Devastation

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Green supporters of renewable energy are horrified at the devastation construction has wrought on pristine Cairns wilderness.

The wind farms angering renewable energy fans

In the ranges behind Cairns, bushland is being cleared in the name of climate action. It’s pitting eco warriors against green energy projects.

Investigation by Mayeta Clark

On the day the Mount Emerald wind farm was officially declared open, Steve Nowakowski felt a heady optimism.

It was winter 2019, the sky was clear and a slight breeze ruffled Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s hair as she spruiked Queensland’s clean, green energy future.

Steve, a renowned wilderness photographer and veteran environmental campaigner, listened in fierce agreement.

“We know we need a very quick transition to renewables and this was a part of a solution,” he says.

So after the opening ceremony, he walked to the top of Mt Emerald to get aerial shots of the site.

Steve had bushwalked through Mt Emerald’s native scrub years earlier and knew the landscape well.

He had no idea at the time that Mt Emerald would become just one of many wind and solar projects proposed, or already under construction, in this part of Queensland, some on significant tracts of unspoilt wilderness.

“It’s really out of control,” Steve says. “And no one knows about it.”

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-12/queensland-wind-farms-clearing-bushland/100683198

I mean, a late awakening Steve, but welcome to the party.

I know we don’t agree on climate change, but the utter devastation of wilderness areas is a significant part of the reason WUWT supporters are opposed to renewable energy. Renewable energy is diffuse, so vast acreages of devastated landscape are required to produce even a fraction of the renewable energy our society would need to transition to Net Zero. And its set to get worse. The materials needs of renewable facilities are so gargantuan, mining and processing would have to be expanded by at least 50% to hit Net Zero by 2050. And that’s not even including backup battery manufacture.

Steve, Michael Moore even made a documentary about the green energy horror show. He set out to expose Big Oil, but what he found was very different to what he expected. I guess you didn’t see his documentary, before you gave your backing to the wind projects.

There is a zero carbon alternative to widespread destruction of the wilderness – nuclear power. Instead of 10s of square miles of wilderness devastation to power a city, an equivalent nuclear plant takes a few acres of land. Maybe its time you and your green friends took a closer look at the possibilities.

5 50 votes
Article Rating
171 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
December 11, 2021 10:09 pm

When today’s Bolsheviks secure their one party rule, and they seem to think that’s imminent, environmentalists will find themselves thrown under the bus.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Steve Case
December 11, 2021 11:02 pm

POI, the word “Bolsheviks” is a bit of a misnomer, a Russian word meaning majority. However the green slime are actually Mensheviks, the Russian word for minority! The reality is historically simple, there is always a minority (mensheviks) who seek to manipulate & control the majority, (Bolsheviks), but politically it is expedient to claim representation of the majority when control of that majority is the actual objective, through which the power & money can be seized as part of that manipulation & control!!! I think they call it “Socialism”, it’s a bit like Communism only with a smile on the face but the intention is the same!!!

Steve Case
Reply to  Alan the Brit
December 11, 2021 11:46 pm

The Bolsheviks ultimately became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

4E Douglas
Reply to  Alan the Brit
December 12, 2021 7:55 am

I’ve always heard that the difference between
Socialism and Communism is the Communist
“boot in the face forever”is the same with socialism’
but the boot is covered with a fuzzy, pink, bunny slipper.

Paul Blase
Reply to  4E Douglas
December 12, 2021 2:52 pm

Socialism is the general economic theory, as opposed to free-market. Communism(Marxism) and fascism are the particular implementations of that theory.

Both demand complete centralized control of the economy and all social structures. Communism centralizes all ownership of property, Fascism cartelizes industry through regulation and taxation. The end effect is the same.

Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  Paul Blase
December 12, 2021 4:18 pm

Ergo, as a friend pointed out to me years ago, China is now a Fascist country.

griff
Reply to  Steve Case
December 12, 2021 12:41 am

Nobody who is a climate scientist or part of renewable energy is a ‘bolshevik’. This isn’t some communist or left wing plot.

J Mac
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 12, 2021 10:24 am

RE: “If Greens wholeheartedly backed nuclear, decarbonisation would be rapid and bipartisan.”

If Greens wholeheartedly backed nuclear, decarbonisation would still be pointless and undesirable.

Greg
Reply to  J Mac
December 12, 2021 11:18 am

This isn’t some communist or left wing plot.

Ask Christina Figueres about that. They’ve openly admitted it is about global redistribution of wealth.

It has long been a pseudo-scientific fraud, perpetrated by predominantly left wing academics and propagated by leftwing media campaign platforms maquerading as news outlets.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg
Steve Case
Reply to  Greg
December 12, 2021 2:01 pm

Yes, every now and then they aren’t so circumspect and let us all know exactly what it is that they are all about:
________________________________

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”
– Christiana Figueres

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.
-George Soros

“We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it. -George Monbiot

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve Case
Komerade Cube
Reply to  Greg
December 12, 2021 7:55 pm

Griff is a paid shill for the CCP

Steve Case
Reply to  J Mac
December 12, 2021 1:53 pm

decarbonisation would still be pointless and undesirable.

BINGO! CO2 is NOT a problem.

Stuart Hamish
Reply to  griff
December 12, 2021 1:58 am

You consistently lose debates ‘ griff ‘ [ or is it Todd Huffman ?] .and once again trolling here provocatively in bad faith .Alan discussed the Menshiviks analogously [ in the sense of a manipulative power craving minority ] and Steve Case made a distinction between Bolsheviks and environmentalists.. Another dud Straw Man .That said, there are climate scientists who are radical Marxists. Exhibit 1 : ‘ Marxist Climate Scientist Standing for Election in Melbourne ‘ September 11 ,2020 .Lucas Rosas , The Unshackled ” Andrew Charles is a climate scientist working for the Bureau of Meteorology. He’s also a devout Marxist ,an activist with the revolutionary Trotskyist group Socialist Alternative [ SAlt] and a member of ….the Victorian Socialists “.. Read The Unshackled article . https://theunshackled.net/rundown/marxist-climate-scientist-standing-for-election-in-melbourne/

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
December 12, 2021 2:56 am

Griff. Never right about anything.

Redge
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
December 12, 2021 4:03 am

Griff. Never knowingly right about anything.

stewartpid
Reply to  Redge
December 12, 2021 9:32 am

I think griff is like my sisters who I consider “commie-lite socialists” …. they think happy faces and a fuzzy pink boot in your face is okay communism.

H.R.
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
December 12, 2021 4:13 am

…and never in doubt.

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
December 12, 2021 6:16 am

And right on que you toddle in and spew lies.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
December 12, 2021 6:59 am

Once again griff demands that we ignore the evidence in favor of what others want us to believe.
griff has been able to do it, so everyone else should as well.

As to climate scientists not being part of the majority (bolshevik), I do agree with that.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
December 12, 2021 7:00 am

griff, have you read up on the history of December tornadoes yet?

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
December 12, 2021 10:03 am

Griff, if one reads the statements of those involved, including CliSciFi scientists, government types (especially UN) and activists, one will see that they are calling for the destruction of capitalism. Explain to me how one could not see this as a Leftist “plot.” The whole push is to replace free markets with planned command and control economies worldwide. Read what the “usual suspects” are actually saying, not what the Leftist media is pushing on the public (propaganda).

Lrp
Reply to  griff
December 12, 2021 10:30 am

Nobody is a big word to use in this assertion. Most university educated under 40 subscribe to some form of socialism

mspsgt
Reply to  griff
December 12, 2021 2:30 pm

Of course it is. That’s why we call them watermelons. Green on the outside, but Red on the inside. It is ultimately the destruction of capitalism and the redistribution of wealth.

Paul Blase
Reply to  griff
December 12, 2021 2:56 pm

Actually, it is. Seriously. Part of the long-standing socialist methodology is to overthrow the existing order in order to install a new one. Destroying the economy is part of the plan.

The Greens may think that they’re saving the planet, in reality they’re “useful idiots”.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  griff
December 12, 2021 7:54 pm

Oh Griff, more pro CCP propoganda!

Upfrontaussie
Reply to  griff
December 13, 2021 4:23 pm

Yes! This is a communist left wing plot.

Mr.
December 11, 2021 10:18 pm

Eric, it won’t be intrinsic rationality that brings Greens to accept nuclear power plants, but rather despondency when the millennials push them aside and commission nukes in every postcode.

Iain Russell
December 11, 2021 10:51 pm

Who, just who, would have thought that Green stuff would invade nature?!? Any bustard with half a brain!! Peckerheads!!

tonyb(@climatereason)
Editor
Reply to  Iain Russell
December 12, 2021 1:41 am

Ertic

Speaking of green stuff and nature. Will the power cables be buried under ground or should we be expecting to see giant electricity pylons springing up to take the power to where it is to be used?

tony

Graeme#4
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 12, 2021 2:24 am

At A$2.4m for every kilometre (US$2.75m/mile?) of transmission line, that’s going to be expensive!

Spetzer86
Reply to  Graeme#4
December 12, 2021 5:58 am

It’s expensive either way. Lots of cash to go every which way, as long as it’s away from us and toward their pockets. What did you think was the point of the exercise?

MarkW
Reply to  Graeme#4
December 12, 2021 7:02 am

Expensive and inefficient. Lots of power is going to be lost in transmission.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Graeme#4
December 12, 2021 9:00 am

Expensive, as it needs maintenance even when its not functioning.
Hey, to make the transmission lines at least more functional lets locate the back up generation capacity (nuclear, gas, oil…) out in the boonies with the rest of the wind towers. That’s gotta reduce costs…NOT!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Graeme#4
December 12, 2021 10:10 am

There was a time in my life when we could build multi-lane freeways for $1m/mile. Inflation is one of the consequences of more expensive or less efficient energy sources.

tonyb(@climatereason)
Editor
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 12, 2021 6:12 am

Eric

In my experience the pylons are even uglier than the turbines so it will be interesting to see what the greens make of that

tonyb

Rhs
Reply to  tonyb
December 12, 2021 6:50 am

The pylons may be uglier than the turbines, but I’d rather look at 5 – 10% of the pylons in a couple of straight line than 100% of the turbines in a large grid pattern.

PCman999
Reply to  tonyb
December 12, 2021 7:40 am

But you have to have both, the pylons (or expensive and very disruptive underground cables) are necessary to bring the power from the far-flung wind turbines to the cities. Personally, I think the turbines are more esthetically pleasing that the pylons, and I have driven out of my way to watch them spin.

tonyb(@climatereason)
Editor
Reply to  PCman999
December 12, 2021 7:54 am

I think neither are pleasing in the wrong environment such as un-spoilt country or exceptional scenery.

I saw turbines once lining a very boring flat Dutch landscape besides a canal. They looked ok there. How effective they are is anther matter

tonyb

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  tonyb
December 12, 2021 10:14 am

Yes, it seems aesthetics is something left out of the equation.

4E Douglas
Reply to  PCman999
December 12, 2021 8:03 am

Here in my part of NEOregon we’re fighting both wind and the pylons. Right now, we are seeing wind power starting to fail due to wear and tear. all of it could be relace by a small nuke on the back of a lowboy trailer in each town. No more powerlines and no brownouts when you plug in your tesla.

stewartpid
Reply to  4E Douglas
December 12, 2021 9:35 am

How old are the turbines when they fail … here in S Alberta the turbines rarely get to 20 years old before they start failing and shortly after the 20 year mark they begin to be abandoned …. likely as uneconomic to repair.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  PCman999
December 12, 2021 10:12 am

If you have seen one spinning turbine, you have seen them all. Unless maybe when they are burning.

Curious George(@moudryj)
Reply to  tonyb
December 12, 2021 7:55 am

Paint it all green.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Curious George
December 12, 2021 10:23 am

Don’t laugh, people! I was involved in the planning of a HV transmission line along the Oregon coast in Tillamook County. The local powers that be insisted we paint the metal towers green in order to get a permit and no reasoning would dissuade them. I laughed every time I drove by the line to see the green towers outlined against the blue/grey of the Pacific Northwest ocean.

BTW, from the viewer’s standpoint forests aren’t green; they are mostly black. As an experiment, we painted steel lattice HV towers flat black for a new transmission line in a forested area of Northern Idaho. You couldn’t see them! After the bright aluminum conductors faded with weathering you’d have to know where to look to see the transmission line in a timbered area.

Harves
December 11, 2021 10:51 pm

Greens/leftists can never think beyond next week. The rest of us (who could do some basic maths) realised a decade ago that solar and wind power would require huge tracts of land to make the tiniest dent.
Most greens wouldn’t even understand that if you want to plonk a windmill on a mountain you have to build a road for trucks to get there and then run a cable all the way back to civilisation.

MarkW
Reply to  Harves
December 12, 2021 7:04 am

I remember a former politician who would declare himself the “idea man”. It was up to the staff to figure out the details.

PCman999
Reply to  Harves
December 12, 2021 7:50 am

Most eco true believers still espouse the belief that the whole world can be powered by such-and-such small area of land covered by wind turbines and solar panels, ignoring the evidence of their own eyes, that is if they both to look.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  PCman999
December 12, 2021 10:18 am

Yes, all that is necessary is to put the world’s population in a corner of Texas and build wind turbines over their 1,500 sq. ft. plots. That way, no transmission corridors are necessary.

czechlist
Reply to  PCman999
December 12, 2021 10:27 am

What should the spacing between turbines be for maximum efficiency?

czechlist
Reply to  Harves
December 12, 2021 10:21 am

I have “greenie” friends who bowl several nights each week. The bowling center has 60 lanes with auto pin setters and auto scoring, a cafe, a lounge, numerous TVs and a lighted parking lot.With leagues and open bowling all 60 lanes are usually in use each night. I have challenged them for years to estimate how many solar panels would be required to power the establishment. Still awaiting their answer. And, they all drive pickups or SUVs.
I have always intended to ask the owner what her monthly electric usage averages but when I go I rarely get past the lounge.

roger
Reply to  Harves
December 12, 2021 3:38 pm

Look upon my works ye peasants and despair…. with apologies to Percy Bysshe Shelley and his prescient poem Ozymandias

December 11, 2021 10:59 pm

There is nothing green about “green” energy. That is obvious to anybody with more than a handful of brain cells.

Dennis G Sandberg
December 11, 2021 11:02 pm

Twenty five years ago the eco’s were all in on ethanol, now they want it to go away because it’s worse than fossil fuels. Twenty five years from now, when millions of solar panels and windmills are abandoned and left to rot, they’ll feel the same way about W&S. Never happen? They’ll all be recycled? Take a drive south of Bakersfield, CA, and notice the 1000 or so abandoned wind turbines along the highway at the Mojave airbase. If eco-zealots in Cali can’t get abandoned windmills decommissioned who can?

Disputin
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
December 12, 2021 3:34 am

“If eco-zealots in Cali can’t get abandoned windmills decommissioned who can?”

Well, almost anybody, given the general incompetence of the green blob.

Don
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
December 12, 2021 5:03 am

The Chinese estimate by 2030 1 million tons per year of used EV batteries to be disposed of and 1 million tons plus of aged redundant PV panels , both very difficult to recycle . Plus many many thousands of fibreglass wind turbine blades to be buried.

MarkW
Reply to  Don
December 12, 2021 7:05 am

Can you make artificial reefs out of decommissioned turbine blades? Or would they leach toxic chemicals?

Rhs
Reply to  MarkW
December 12, 2021 8:46 am

Unlike pastics, I imagine fiberglass fibers to be disruptive to sea life since they don’t degrade.
Would like to see an experiment with fiberglass in constant wave motion to verify though.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Rhs
December 12, 2021 9:15 am

How exactly are quartz or silica fibers toxic to sea life? Any volcano creates tons of the stuff.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rocketscientist
December 12, 2021 10:20 am

It isn’t the chemical composition, it is the physical shape, as with asbestos.

ATheoK
Reply to  Rocketscientist
December 12, 2021 3:39 pm

Fibers in fiberglass are generally resin, not silica.

Many, if not most solar arrays have MSDS documents that clearly identify solar panel breakage as a method that exposes encapsulated or imbedded compounds to the environment as toxic.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ATheoK
December 12, 2021 3:45 pm

Fibers in fiberglass are generally resin, not silica.

It is news to me, and Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiberglass

Komerade Cube
Reply to  ATheoK
December 12, 2021 8:12 pm

Thats why they call it glass reinforced plastic (GRP) or fibreglass.

MarkW
Reply to  Rocketscientist
December 12, 2021 6:52 pm

I suspect the fibers might irritate gills.

Rhs
Reply to  Rocketscientist
December 12, 2021 7:55 pm

I was thinking the fibrous glass shards.

ATheoK
Reply to  MarkW
December 12, 2021 3:33 pm

There are good reasons why large iron or concrete structures are used for reefs.

Windmill blades would be easily moved by currents. Trying to anchor the blades with blocks of concrete is unlikely to stabilize them for very long.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Don
December 12, 2021 9:13 am

Why are they burying these blades? We don’t bury all the fiberglass/graphite composite trash we produce. The resins quickly degrade with exposure to weather. (No, they don’t last that long. They are using the cheep stuff. We’ve been making high performance composite structures for a very long time . Such low grade materials require special top-coatings to maintain their structural properties and they abrade easily requiring special maintenance.) Just stack them on the ground and let them rot in the sun. What is the issue? Particulate dust? Any urban landfill produces far more particulates.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rocketscientist
December 12, 2021 10:22 am

Any urban landfill produces far more particulates.

But a very small percentage of the landfill particulates are fibrous.

tygrus
December 11, 2021 11:04 pm

In this case it may spoil the view but it doesn’t look to have ever had tall & thick vegetation. All the towers have access road between that destroys the usual vegetation. Other sites may be worse than this one in terms of biomass removed. YMMV.

Ted
Reply to  tygrus
December 12, 2021 11:42 am

Biomass is kind of the opposite of the point here. Ecosystems with little vegetation are continually described as “delicate” by the left when opposing traditional projects (pipelines, powerplants, etc.) such that any disturbance could be significant.

Mike
December 11, 2021 11:36 pm

Only the start. Wait till the offshore ones get going….They are like a cancer.

Ryan
Reply to  Mike
December 11, 2021 11:57 pm

Offshore – where the damage is under the ocean where people can’t see it.

Paul C
Reply to  Ryan
December 12, 2021 6:08 am

Do you not have seabirds down under, or have the onshore whirlygigs already sliced them up. Visibility is brief, with the evidence soon washed away, and likely happens most intensively at twilight, or under cover of darkness. At least offshore bird destroyers recycle the birds as fish food rather than enticing raptors into the destructive zone.

Lrp
December 11, 2021 11:52 pm

Steve is an idiot, simple as that

December 11, 2021 11:54 pm

Parallel story from Cairns right now. If you goog [TV Adverts to beef up Cairns water supply] you should get the story. Cairns has huge annual rainfall yet their Regional Council is paying for TV Adverts about enhancing their municipal water supply.

Cardimona
Reply to  wazz
December 12, 2021 1:28 am

There are three great dam sites in the hills behind Cairns that could mirror the Copperlode Dam (built by the local Cairns council, back in the 1970s when the world was saner) and secure Cairns’ future water supply.
However, the UNESCO World Heritage Listing of the local bush (because Ancient Rainforest!!, which only spread to the hills around 10,000 years ago) makes that impossible.
We never voted for foreigners to control our bush.
We were sold out by the globalist polliemuppets that infest our federal government.
Specifically, the Labor party overtaking The Greens on their left.

roaddog
December 12, 2021 12:05 am

All of the planet’s greatest environmental disasters are the results of government policy.

John Hultquist
Reply to  roaddog
December 12, 2021 7:56 pm
December 12, 2021 12:15 am

The irrational push for ‘Renewable’ energy is going to devastate even more of the Earth’s surface than the worst of the imagined effects of ‘Climate Change’ from the Eco-Loons ever would have.

Julian Flood
December 12, 2021 12:20 am

There’s nuclear and nuclear. Old-fashioned nukes like the almost impossible to build French-designed European Press water Reactors take too long and are ruinously costly? Modern modular construction and a scaling down is addressing those problems.

The absolutely worst option in the UK is solar

JF

Julian Flood
Reply to  Julian Flood
December 12, 2021 12:22 am

Pressurised, sorry, and sorry about the errant.?

PCman999
Reply to  Julian Flood
December 12, 2021 7:57 am

No prob thot u were just using short forms. You can edit your post, by clicking the gear symbol near the bottom right corner of your post.

yirgach
Reply to  Julian Flood
December 12, 2021 12:20 pm

One of these daze it may start to dawn on people that no matter where you live on the planet, solar is latitude driven.

December 12, 2021 12:29 am

So now what is this idiot going to do?
Where has he been the last two or three decades?
But seriously, I want to follow what he does from here on if he really cares about the planet.
We need to get to any genuine environmentalists in the so-called environmentalist groups and ask them if they realise what is going on, clearly their normal channels of information are highly selective.

The Energy Realists circulated a note on this topic last year and there is a whole series in the pipeline to cover the ten phases from prospecting and mining through construction to demolition and disposal of the panels, batteries and other waste.

https://www.riteon.org.au/netzero-casualties/#212

Cardimona
Reply to  Rafe Champion
December 12, 2021 1:52 am

I live high up on the same ridge as the intermittent, unreliable Mt Emerald wind-to-electricity factory – about five kilometres from the nearest monument to technological ignorance.
Before it came online I could look out my windows at any time of day and see three different species of raptors soaring on the updraft where the wind accelerates up the rising ground profile.
They were plentiful.
Now, a little over three years after it was switched on, the raptors are gone and sightings are rare.
If it weren’t for double standards, greentards would have no standards at all.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Cardimona
December 12, 2021 3:28 pm

Windmills are a crime against wildlife.

observa
December 12, 2021 12:41 am

“It’s really out of control,” Steve says. “And no one knows about it.”

Relax it’s all under control Steve. You just have to trust the good perfessor and his peer reviewed published science. Now he’s talking about the US but the same scientific percentages will apply to Oz matey-

the transition to such a 100% renewable and storage grid creates approximately 4.7 million more permanent jobs than are lost and requires somewhere between .29% and .55% of new US land for footprint and spacing, respectively, less than the 1.3% occupied by the fossil fuel industry today.
Stanford study demonstrates 100% renewable US grid, with no blackouts | RenewEconomy

Trust absolutely these environmental engineers and their computations Steve as your unfounded fears and doubts can lead to impure thoughts and skepticism and…gulp!.. even questioning the science and methodology and that way lies the dark side with excommunication and ostracism. Pull yourself together Steve or seek woke bespoke counselling.

observa
Reply to  observa
December 12, 2021 6:59 am

Oh that Mark Jacobson-
Stanford professor retracts $10 million libel suit against scientific critic, academic journal | The Stanford Daily
There’s a certain correlation with these enthusiastic climate changers I can’t quite put my finger on at the moment but it will come to me….?

Peta of Newark
December 12, 2021 1:20 am

Please don’t use the term “Net Zero” Use “Zero” instead.
2 reasons, maybe 3

  1. It implies the burning of Biomass, CO2 being released and recaptured by plants. Understand what dirt is and how it works to realise the Planet destroying lie that that is.
  2. Use instead the term “Zero”. It will drive the eco-warriors nuts and is what in fact will happen if #1 above is pursued
  3. Net implies some sort of carbon trading = Virtue Signalling and Buck Passing in any other words. In actuality no more than a device to enable legions of smart-suited ‘traders’, middlemen and other parasites to relieve ordinary folk of their hard earned money – as if there aren’t enough of those already.

The wilderness will grow back when the windmills fall over -don’t fret your pretty little head.
In fact, the ‘mills will work to save the wilderness – from deranged eco-arsonists and also those who imagine burning holes in a forest, to relieve the ‘fuel load’, is the best way to Save It.
(See #1 above. again)
They’ll keep the matches in their pockets both cases

Bruce Cobb
December 12, 2021 1:21 am

Yeah, next time Steve, maybe do a little research.

December 12, 2021 1:42 am

This story is a beat-up. The location is well inland from Cairns. As you can see from the photo, the area is not rain forest, but dry scrubby land. And it isn’t pristine. Within 4 km, there is the Springmount Raceway, the Springmount waste disposal facility, and the Lotus Glen Correctional centre. Not to mention the Tableland Mill and Evolution Industries.

LdB
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 12, 2021 5:04 am

The story images actually show it is very significant area and it has traditional owners which Nick just ignores. Scroll down thru the images and damage.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-12/queensland-wind-farms-clearing-bushland/100683198

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
ATheoK
Reply to  LdB
December 12, 2021 4:51 pm

Those images display a great deal more detail.

e.g., That the roads were bulldozed level, no matter how deep, making long deep road channels for water to flow more quickly downhill…

  • Which cause deep rutting…
  • Causing more damage and wear & tear to wind farm vehicles…
  • Causing the maintenance/inspection teams to bulldoze the roads and grade them…

All while depriving the landscape of the water that falls there. End of rain forest.

Stupid gits.

Last edited 1 month ago by ATheoK
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 12, 2021 5:40 am

The Emerald Wind Farm (53 turbines) was the first significant ‘renewable’ project in FNQ and the local Cairns and Tablelands Eco-warriors cheered it on. However,, the euphoria has worn off as the Kaban Wind Farm (25 turbines) starts construction and the Chalumbin Wind Farm (95 turbines) is set to be approved.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hollands+Rd,+Tumoulin+QLD+4888/@-17.5661146,145.4081942,2798m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x69820172ade724ef:0x72929a79ab5457db!8m2!3d-17.5661146!4d145.4169489

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chalumbin+Hill/@-17.7666656,145.4991571,5590m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x697f57b42c756f85:0xa98a1d437fa3b062!8m2!3d-17.7666667!4d145.5166667!5m1!1e4

MarkW
Reply to  Bill Bates
December 12, 2021 7:12 am

Everybody loves wind turbines.
Until someone proposes building a wind farm near them.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
December 12, 2021 10:41 am

Green profiteers at the other end of the NIMBY stick.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 12, 2021 7:20 am

Nitpick Nick swings and misses!

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 12, 2021 3:01 am

Why don’t you like nuclear power and fossil fuels?

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 12, 2021 4:43 am

Nick comes along to define what is important because someone voted him the umpire?

Perhaps you should take it up with Mayeta Clark at the ABC and set her straight with your extensive biology and eco system background Nick.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
MarkW
Reply to  LdB
December 12, 2021 7:13 am

He’s a liberal. In his mind that makes him an exert on everything, and entitled to tell lesser beings how to run their lives.

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 12, 2021 5:01 am

Not to worry it’s Jirrbal land and the traditional owners are now aware of the damage of what was supposed to be a low impact development so the fun should really be on.

Nick you better go and tell them it’s just worthless scrub because you defined it as such and they should just ignore the damage.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 12, 2021 7:11 am

Interesting. A few percent of the land is being used by industry, therefore there is no problem destroying the rest of the land by putting wind turbines and power pylons all over it.

Reply to  MarkW
December 12, 2021 8:45 am

 A few percent of the land is being used by industry”
Eric described it as the devastation construction has wrought on pristine Cairns wilderness.”. It isn’t pristine; the wind farm is dwarfed by a large official rubbish tip. It isn’t Cairns; it is a long way inland, in dry country. And it isn’t a wilderness, with a rubbish tip, a racetrack, and a jail.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 12, 2021 9:58 am

You should live next to it with your extra blanket for warmth…human 💩

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 12, 2021 3:53 pm

I think the pictures of the area and the traditional owners may disagree but Nick doubles down because it is on WUWT he must attack. You really are a nutcase and no distortion is to much for the cause.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
MarkW
Reply to  LdB
December 12, 2021 7:00 pm

Only facts that agree with the left wing narrative qualify as facts.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 12, 2021 10:35 am

I guess your ‘logic’ is that if someone is so unfortunate as to have a pretty face, but an ugly body, then there is no harm in mutilating the face.

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 12, 2021 10:47 am

Have the turbines built in your urban parks and beaches to have them in sight as you love them so much

OddsOn
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 12, 2021 2:17 pm

It was pristine area before the wind farm and it is a mere 56 km from the coast. Being dry and scrubby doesn’t detract from being pristine, the continent is made up of diverse vegetation types, and they are all unique in their diversity
Going down the Gilles highway from the tableland, the road has rain forest on one side, when you round that spur , within 500 meters, the vegetation changes eucalyptus forest and that is within 24 km of the ocean. So learn the geography, of the state, 56 km is not remote and the monstrocity is visual pilution in a very scenic area, not to mention the physical pollution it causes. Eben the Windy Hill wind farm at Raveshoe is a visual more blight on the landscape.

observa
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 13, 2021 3:08 am

I get where you’re coming from Nick but you have to understand what you’re up against with these watermelon eco-warriors. They deal in absolutes and there’s not a rational sense of the tradeoff or cost benefit analysis inside their heads. It’s all about emotion and the struggle. Doesn’t matter what the struggle is over. Just so long as they’re immersed in the outrage and the struggle and unleashing changing the global climate is now the ultimate struggle for them. What could be bigger?

Their absolutism and emotional urge to struggle for that corker has made them anti-human toward those with any sense of reason getting in their way. Consequently trying to harness them productively is like herding cats-
Taking a walk on the rewild side: is it time for a new approach to conservation? (msn.com)

They just get more extreme in thought and deed by the day and graduating into the ultimate with the XR doomsday cult is a natural progression along with their bizarro wokeness. Nothing rational or achieving anything worthwhile about them but you’re going to change the climate with them remember. You know- the windmills solar panels and Elon 😉

fretslider
December 12, 2021 1:52 am

“ He had no idea “

A common problem with the green fraternity. They don’t think.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  fretslider
December 12, 2021 8:39 am

Greens largely live in cities, never see nature except in propaganda documentaries, and don’t know from where or how their energy or food are produced.

Eric Vieira
December 12, 2021 2:13 am

I can recommend another documentary which is about the harmful impacts of windfarms in Sweden: Headwind 21 (Marijn Poels).

Komerade Cube
Reply to  Eric Vieira
December 12, 2021 8:48 pm

Sorry, no props for Marijin he’s an eco loon who suddenly discovered that the world doesn’t work the way he wants it to. He’s a dope.

ozspeaksup
December 12, 2021 3:25 am

bloody hilarious…they wanted birdshredders they got em
and now theyre upset?

observa
Reply to  ozspeaksup
December 12, 2021 3:56 am

Well you can want the bird shredders but not the transmission lines silly-
Wildlife concerns blunt Germany’s green power efforts (msn.com)
(I don’t make this stuff up honest!)

Dave Fair
Reply to  observa
December 12, 2021 10:57 am

My takeaway: The government puts into place rules that frustrate development of transmission lines because of environmental concerns. When the government wants to build more transmission lines, they change the rules. The same environmental concerns exist, but they are subordinate to new, arbitrary governmental policy.

With the near-certainty of changing governmental policies, why would normal investors undertake projects in the absence of governmental subsidies and guarantees? This is how socialists destroy free market capitalism; arbitrary, politicized and ideological government policies … Third World lawless and capricious shit.

December 12, 2021 3:31 am

The basic issue is that the Eco-warrior foot soldiers live in a bubble, listening to their own ‘think tanks’ and ‘gurus’. While cheering on the billions of dollars of tax payer funds subsidizing wind and solar farms, siphoning money away from health, education, infrastructure etc. they have zero understanding a to the scale of ‘renewables’ required to replace fossil fuel dispatchable base load power.Worst still, it has not dawned on they as too the environmental impacts of exploration, mining, processing, manufacturing, installation and disposal requirements for their ‘carbon free’ energy.

Optimum equivalent requirements to replace 1GW of Dispatchable Base-load Power:

Wind – nameplate capacity 4.04GW plus 10.1GW of Battery or Hydro Storage, equivalent to
9 x $850M Coopers Gap Wind Farms each with 123 x 3.75MW turbines complete with battery backup equivalent of 52 x $172M, Hornsdale Power Reserves for an approximate cost of $17B.

Solar – nameplate capacity 4.55GW plus 15.75GWh of Battery or Hydro Storage, equivalent to 45 x $200M, 100MW Yarranlea Solar Farms, each with 372,833 x 360watt solar panels complete with battery backup storage equivalent to 81 x $172M, Hornsdale Power Reserves at an approximate cost of $A23B.
Source: Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise – Measuring-Renewable-Energy-as-Baseload-Power
https://www.kenaninstitute.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Kenan-Institute-Report-Measuring-Renewable-Energy-as-Baseload-Power-v2.pdf

ATheoK
Reply to  Bill Bates
December 12, 2021 8:14 pm

Great detailed descriptions!
Don’t forget the land needs for wind or solar and the batteries needed to support each.

Lithium batteries that size need a lot of space and cooling to minimize problems when they combust.

RickWill
Reply to  Bill Bates
December 12, 2021 8:44 pm

Optimum equivalent requirements to replace 1GW of Dispatchable Base-load Power:

This is optimised to the complete exclusion of fossil fuel. However the paper considers a mix of intermittent and fossil generation.

At present fossil fuels costs, there is no economic solution for wind and solar. The economic solution is zero wind or solar.

I wonder if there will ever be a point where a combination of wind or solar plus battery plus fossil fuel dispatchable will offer an economic solution.

December 12, 2021 3:50 am

If you sow the wind you shall reap the whirlwind.

Joseph Zorzin
December 12, 2021 3:56 am

Watch this video of the construction of a “wind farm” in western Massachusetts a decade ago. It’s a time lapse and is amazing to watch. This is in the “beautiful Berkshires” a tourist area. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSgVpz_7dDg. They had to make a road to the top of the mountain 100′ foot wide. Since then, few wind farms have been built on land in MA since everybody hates them.

About the same time an 18 acre “solar farm” was built behind my neighborhood in central MA, a mostly low income area since all the once thriving industry here were moved to China so that the 1% could get even richer- while many of the locals fell into poverty, obesity and opiate drug addiction. When this “farm” was proposed- they were going to build it to 10′ of the backyards of the half acre modest ranch houses on my street. I sued the company and the town planning board and we settled which pushed them back a bit and they coughed up $35,000 to landscape the backyards with new trees and shrubs- and they planted 500 arborvitae trees on the boundaries. This “clean and green” energy facility is on the aquifer for the town. The site was originally a forest, then farmland, then much of it cleared gravel extraction. The gravel extraction had ceased years earlier and much of the site grew back to forest. The site is right next to a river, several vernal pools and a 50 acre state owned wetland managed for wildlife. Because of these environmental concerns I thought the enviro groups would offer some assistance in preventing the construction or at least shrinking it. But no, they showed no interest- I invited them to take a look- nobody showed up. I went out almost every day to watch and film the construction and made a rank amateur video. It should be obvious it took a lot of fossil fuel to build this “clean and green” facility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYYVZKgusU4. Ironically, the enviros didn’t mind when these solar farms were build in low income communities but when they started to be built in their higher income communities- now we’re seeing them complain about them- because trees have to be cut to build them. In fact, the former state energy czar admitted in a zoom meeting that hundreds of thousands of acres of forest will have to be sacrificed to get to net zero, which must happen by law by 2050. After he admitted that- he was fired.

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 12, 2021 7:16 am

I’ve always been fascinated at how upset people who will drive miles to shop where it is cheapest, get their panties in a wad when companies do the same thing.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 12, 2021 11:04 am

That was one of the biggest reasons I quit the U.S. Federal government: Honesty is penalized in ideologically-driven systems.

ATheoK
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 12, 2021 8:43 pm

Messengers with honest appraisals and facts quickly learn to keep their mouths shut. Or they get shot just walking in a door.

ATheoK
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 12, 2021 8:39 pm

“I thought the enviro groups would offer some assistance”

Vernal pools, wetlands?
Contacting Trout Unlimited and Ducks Unlimited along with every fishing club and sportsman organization in Massachusetts should get some attention.

Hunters and fishermen helped states purchase wetlands. You might as well get their dander up.

Massachusetts has many TU members.

Just tell them that solar farms change water runoff.

Last edited 1 month ago by ATheoK
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  ATheoK
December 13, 2021 2:48 am

Did all that a decade ago- nobody showed any interest- they all thought solar farms would be groovy- now they’re seeing the damage and now there is resistance from the major enviro groups- who think the solution is to put solar only on roofs and parking lots. But, there aren’t enough roofs and parking lots in the state to get to net zero nirvana- and the cost is greater than putting them on the landscape. The conclusion they haven’t yet come to- is that net zero is a stupid idea.

RickWill
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 12, 2021 9:02 pm

It is easy to do the calculation to arrive at a figure like wind energy plus storage is at least 100X more materials intensive than a gas fired generator for a given dispatchable capacity. That video puts the 100X in perspective.

It is a mind-boggling waste of resources. The so-called “developed” world has to be smarter than this.

Willem Post
December 12, 2021 4:17 am

If Biden’s MULTI-$TRILLION BBB bill becomes law, there would be a vast amount of environmental devastation all over the US, including on hundreds of miles of 2000-ft-high ridge lines, with 500-ft high wind turbines, in New England.

That would be creating huge turmoil among the US people, all while China, India, etc, continue burning at least 8 BILLION metric ton of coal, each year.

I am not surprised at the lack of PUBLIC TRUST in WASHINGTON, DC, and elsewhere in the world.

The games of smoke and mirrors played in Washington are off-the-charts outrageous.

NEVER, EVER, has there been such a level of DECEIT, as Dem/Progs have inflicted on the US People, since January 2021, after using a fraudulent election to achieve a COUP D’ETAT, to have a major increase of CENTRALIZED COMMAND/CONTROL over the federal government and the US people.

Here is an egregious example:

Build Back Better’ Would Cost $4.95 TRILLION Over the Next Decade, if Provisions Were Made to Last 10 Years
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/build-back-better-would-cost-3-95-trillion-overt-the-next-decade

Phase 1

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had estimated on Nov. 18, the US House-passed ‘Build Back Better’ (BBB) bill, if it would become law, would increase the US national debt by a mere $160 BILLION over the next decade, if the various programs of the bill had different expiration dates. Some programs would expire in one year, others in two years, etc. The BBB bill would establish universal preschool, expand Medicaid, and provide green energy tax credits, etc.

NOTE: The Media, et al, called it the “$1.75 TRILLION bill,” but, after some last-minute “adders” to get more votes, the bill’s cost became $2.11 TRILLION. That bill was sent to the US Senate; fingers crossed.

NOTE: Having various “expiration dates” of programs, within a bill, is a standard procedure to make its cost APPEAR a lot smaller than in reality. Pelosi/Sanders/Schumer, et al, applied that smoke-and-mirrors charade to make the cost of the BBB bill APPEAR small, and to make the “added to US national debt” APPEAR small.

NOTE: The original BBB bill was for $6.0 TRILLION, as concocted by Socialist Sanders. When that proved to be a non-starter, he “whittled it down” to an alleged $3.5 TRILLION, which, he said was the “absolute minimum”. That bill contained various smoke-and-mirror schemes, such as various programs of the bill having different expiration dates.

Phase 2

After some US Senate committees reviewed the BBB bill, as is standard practice with all US House bills, they ordered the CBO to make another estimate. 

The CBO released its estimate on Friday, December 10, which showed the BBB bill would INCREASE the US national debt by $3.0 TRILLION, if the proposed programs were made permanent for 10 years, i.e., if all programs of the bill started at the same time and ended at the same time. Of course, once any government program has started, it would take a revolution to end it. See Note
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/cbo-finance-build-back-better-bide

NOTE: The $3 TRILLION includes interest, because as any money is added to the US national debt, in a given year, due to deficit spending, it immediately begins accruing interest.

Schumer had been pressing very hard to get the deceitful, smoke-and-mirrors, BBB bill passed, between November 18 and December 12, because he knew the CBO estimate regarding the REAL cost of the bill would be a game-changing revelation for a lot of US House members, and US Senators, and the US people. The popular backlash would be enormous.

He relentlessly pushed to have it passed 1) before “Biden goes to Glasgow, Scotland, to strengthen his hand”, 2) before Thanksgiving, 3) before Christmas, 4) before the end of the year.

Well, the cat is finally out of the bag. NO SUCH BILL WILL BE PASSED, EVER.

Dem/Progs, who typically make their careers in government, not in private enterprise businesses, have absolutely no intention of letting ANY programs expire. They would fight tooth and nail, for as long as it takes, to EXTEND all of them, for the full 10 years.

NEW TAXES

Various taxes had to be increased, and new taxes had to be imposed, for an alleged total of $1.95 TRILLION. 

This “revenue side” (politicians hate it, but it is required by law) likely is another smoke and-mirrors charade, because those additional taxes would have to be voted on, and most of them likely would not garner enough votes.

MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS

“If the temporary provisions of this BBB bill were extended for the full ten years, and I fully expect them to be, if Dem/Progs would have the votes to do it, this legislation would cost a whole lot more than what the American people have been misled to believe,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a critic of the plan, and the outrageous costs, accused the Biden administration of using “gimmicks” to downplay the bill’s cost.

“As more of the real details outlined in the basic framework are released, what I see are shell games and budget gimmicks that make the real cost of this so-called “$1.75 TRILLION bill” to be at LEAST TWICE AS HIGH, if the programs are extended, or made permanent,” Manchin said

The REALISTIC COST of the bill would be: $1.95 TRILLION, new taxes + $3.0 TRILLION, added to the US national debt = $4.95 TRILLION

Democrats, who hold a narrow Senate majority, would need Manchin’s vote to pass the BBB bill.

Manchin has yet to endorse the package, as proposed, and will probably seek to make significant changes, according to CNBC.

It looks like “significant changes” is the understatement of the year, because a few months ago, Manchin stated, he would consider a BBB bill costing no more than $1.5 TRILLION.

However, Dem/Progs could not help themselves, and, in a feeding frenzy, piled on one program after another.

Major surgery, or cancellation of the BBB bill would be required, to revert to a proper level of fiscal sanity.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Arizona, may seek to change the bill in the Senate.
She already shot down the administration’s effort to hike tax rates on large corporations and wealthy individuals, per CNBC.

All this ADDED DEFICIT SPENDING would be taking place with inflation at about 6.8%/y, Nov21 (it was 6.2% in Oct21) the highest rate in over 30 years, courtesy of the extreme, radical, leftist posse of Biden handlers.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/producer-prices

The adults in the US Senate must finally step up to the plate to stop the madness of the Biden posse.

Related Stories:

Manchin Calls for a ‘Lot of Changes’ to Build Back Better Act
Rep. Estes to Newsmax: US ‘Better Off’ If Build Back Better Fails 

Last edited 1 month ago by Willem Post
MarkW
Reply to  Willem Post
December 12, 2021 7:08 pm

Is the CBO still required by law to assume that changes in tax rates have no impact on economic activity?

H.R.
December 12, 2021 4:56 am

Mayeta Clark: “Steve, a renowned wilderness photographer and veteran environmental campaigner, listened in fierce agreement.”



Listening in fierce agreement? I’ll have to give Mayeta high marks for purple prose.


And there’s this bit:
“It’s really out of control,” Steve says. “And no one knows about it.”


The environmentalist ignorati remind me of the sort that attended the old Hellfire and Brimstone tent revival meetings. The traveling preacher would absolutely torch the emotions of the attendees. Much tears, regret, and repentance… Hallelujah, brother! Everyone heads out all fired up and ready to save some souls.

The Green Sheeple, Steve, for example, are much the same. They attend rallies (tent revivals) and get all worked up to “Save The Planet”. They read the Green religious tracts (constant propaganda) and they contemplate the Green religious icons such as images of starving polar bears.

So long as people limit themselves to tent revivals and green protests, they will remain true believers. But once they stumble outside the bounds of their ‘religion’, like Steve, they will see things that make them question their ‘one true religion’.

It looks like Steve stepped outside the tent.

LdB
Reply to  H.R.
December 12, 2021 5:16 am

Yes but it’s ok because Nick comes along to define it’s just light scrub and what they did was wind development best practice. So Steve must immediately stop looking and just believe as it’s a matter of faith because the great green blob deemed it so.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  H.R.
December 12, 2021 3:50 pm

Stepped outside the tent after a large herbivore had walked past.

Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  H.R.
December 12, 2021 4:57 pm

“There are none so blind as those who will not see”

ATheoK
Reply to  H.R.
December 12, 2021 8:48 pm

It looks like Steve stepped outside the tent.”

It looks like Steve tripped and rolled outside the tent, then realized the tent was gone.

Once the brain learns to see, it incredibly hard to stop seeing.

Coach Springer
December 12, 2021 5:40 am

If wind and solar are good for the planet, they’re good for Yosemite, Yellowstone, the Gold Coast of Chicago, and the D.C. mall – for starters. Preferably all federal and state lands so the leases won’t cost anything. ANWR using the supercooled transmission lines which are supposed to be so efficient.

Last edited 1 month ago by Coach Springer
2hotel9
December 12, 2021 6:17 am

Quinn’s First Law. Leftists always produce the exact opposite of their stated intent.

Walter Horsting
December 12, 2021 6:41 am

California is producing too much solar energy now and still forces roof top solar on all new homes. This is after paying the States of Nevada and Arizona $0.08 Kwh to take our excess. Now they are curtailing solar to the grid from 11 AM to 2 PM.

Solar curltainment (2).jpg
CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Walter Horsting
December 12, 2021 10:33 am

“California is producing too much solar energy now and still forces roof top solar on all new homes. This is after paying the States of Nevada and Arizona $0.08 Kwh to take our excess.”

***********

This is just my opinion, but there is something seriously wrong when you are producing a commodity (solar electricity) and you have to pay somebody to take it off your hands. That is totally ludicrous.

This is an example of government embracing a narrative that has run amok. The idea behind a free market economy is to produce a commodity that you can sell profitably. When that idea is turned on its head because of govt edict, then government has become dysfunctional and no longer serves its purpose.

Willem Post
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 12, 2021 1:31 pm

Germany has been doing that for at least 15 years.
Nobody is paying anything.

During periods of strong winds and low demand, and very low or negative wholesale prices, the existing power plants connected to the German grid cannot back off enough to enable the massive wind quantities to enter the German grid.

Germany merely sends the highly subsidized, excess wind electricity, via HVDC lines, to Norway, which merely runs less water through the hydro plants.

All this is automatically happening at very high speeds, milliseconds.

At some other time, the wholesale prices are positive. Accounts are settled, on a real-time basis, by the grid operator; similar to VISA settlements

Denmark does exactly the same, already for at least 40 years.
There are times Denmark produces more wind than its ENTIRE demand.

WIND AND SOLAR TO PROVIDE 30 PERCENT OF NEW ENGLAND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY 2050
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide-50-percent-of-future-new-england

RickWill
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 12, 2021 9:37 pm

but there is something seriously wrong when you are producing a commodity (solar electricity) and you have to pay somebody to take it off your hands.

This occurs on a daily basis in Australia. But the intermittents have to pay to send out so they stop generating.

It is termed economic curtailment. The faint orange dotted line in the linked chart shows the amount of intermittent curtailment in the Victorian market:
http://nemlog.com.au/gen/region/vic/

You can observe the negative price dips in the wholesale price here if you select “Price and Demand” for Victoria:
https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem#price-demand

Once the price dips negative, the intermittent generators voluntarily curtail.

Lunchtime power in Australia is now a scourge. It is degrading the grid. There is so much rooftop connected that the domestic networks are sitting at the upper voltage limit and the rooftop systems have automatically restricted output to prevent overvoltage. It will require massive investment to get the rooftop output back into the system. It needs automatic tap-changing transformers at the retail distribution level.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Walter Horsting
December 12, 2021 11:15 am

And the crony capitalists still get paid even if it is “curtailed,” on top of all the original subsidies. Take from the poor and give to the rich: Robin Hood with his socialist hood up his ass.

David Sulik
December 12, 2021 7:08 am

They should ban themselves from using any form of energy to get their message out.

Nick Schroeder
December 12, 2021 7:41 am

Looks like gas well locations in the Four Corners but HUGER!!!

Neil
December 12, 2021 7:45 am

Who, just who, would have thought that Greening would mean devastation?!? Anyone with half a brain!

Martin Sandberg
December 12, 2021 8:09 am

Wow, a hearty thanx for pointing to Mayeta Clark’s article! This non-reliable energy nonsense can’t take a good does of daylight!

Shanghai Dan
December 12, 2021 8:38 am

A little 12 acre nuclear power plant – Diablo Canyon – can provide 10% of all of California’s electrical needs. Nine of those plants – about what would fit on that foreground hill in the photo, the one with 6 windmills – would power ALL of Australia (Australia uses about 87% of the electricity of California).

Nuclear is the ONLY sane source of clean, reliable, minimal-footprint power.

Rick K
December 12, 2021 8:39 am

A group of crows is called a “murder.” I think it only appropriate, considering the number of birds, bats, insects and mammals that they kill, that wind turbine installations should be referred to using the same nomenclature.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 12, 2021 9:26 am

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

— derived from a very similar H. L. Mencken quote.

This is the “net zero” obsession in a nutshell.

  • Fossil fuels supply 63% of the world’s electricity today
  • Nuclear and hydro supply most of the rest (10.4% and 15.8%)
  • Wind: 5.3%
  • Solar: 2.7%
  • A wind farm requires over 200 times the land area for the same annual electric output as a thermal plant. A solar farm requires 75 times the land.
  • Wind farms must be built where the wind blows and solar must be built where there is ample sunshine. If these areas also have scenic or other environmental value, it will be at least reduced and possibly eliminated.
  • Wind farms also require several times the steel, concrete and aluminum that thermal plants do. Other critical materials such a copper, nickel, manganese, molybdenum and zinc are likewise needed in much larger quantities for wind/solar generation than for thermal plants. All these extra materials must be extracted, refined and fabricated to build wind/solar generation plants.

There is no magic solution that doesn’t have significant other costs.

And that just the electric generation, which accounts for about one fourth of total fossil fuel consumption.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 13, 2021 8:59 am

“Since 2010 the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables has risen”

International Energy Agency, ‘The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions’ May 2021

Gary Pearse
December 12, 2021 9:37 am

I can’t find the reference (buried by ministry of truth?) to the 90km strip of National Forest along the coast of Denmark that was cut down for a wind ‘farm’ about 20yrs ago. I was blown away that this tiny country could even have 90km of forest.

Seven million trees have been cut down in Scotland for wind and they plan to double this.

https://scotlandagainstspin.org/2020/02/millions-of-trees-felled-to-make-way-for-north-of-scotland-wind-farms-energy-voice/

Most pictures of Scotland look like tundra so this could be an even bigger sacrifice than it seems.

LdB
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 12, 2021 6:07 pm

Epuron the same group that made that mess has applied for another site at Lotus Creek in old growth forest in Queensland. It has been rejected once (https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/43905/20200611/100m-queensland-wind-farm-proposal-gets-rejected.htm)

They have put in a new submission moving it slightly and don’t worry they have a statement of best practice for the site .. what could possibly go wrong
https://epuron.com.au/news/2021/9/2/253-epuron-renews-best-practice-commitment/

Nick will be along shortly to define it as scrub and there are no concern with Koalas as they aren’t tall enough to get chopped by the blades.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
H.R.
Reply to  LdB
December 12, 2021 6:56 pm

What about the endangered Drop Bears? Won’t that destroy their habitat?

LdB
Reply to  H.R.
December 13, 2021 5:01 am

No they aren’t a problem as long as you have an empty beer can to throw at them.

dmacleo
December 12, 2021 9:44 am

anti nuke people really screwed things up in the past

markl
December 12, 2021 10:34 am

Another case of the Left eating itself. Eventually activists of all stripes end up either seeing the light and denouncing their cause or becoming so inner focused that they isolate themselves. It’s the nature of the beast.

Harry Passfield
December 12, 2021 10:35 am

The irony is that the Welsh government is pushing for school-children to plant free trees – having already taken out almost 2,000,000 trees to make way for wind turbines.

Sara
December 12, 2021 10:43 am

“It’s pitting eco warriors against green energy projects.” – article

I wondered when “the awakening” might start. Others will follow.

Joseph Zorzin
December 12, 2021 11:10 am

Here’s a weak defense of the wind and solar industries, brought to you by Yale.

“Three Myths About Renewable Energy and the Grid, Debunked”
https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-energy-and-the-grid-debunked

Dave Fair
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 12, 2021 11:31 am

An electric system study by Amory Lovins and a disarmament guy … what could possibly be problems with the study? No consideration of practicality and cost are biggies. How about making unrealistic assumptions about future technology and its cost? Assuming that industry, businesses and people will only use energy when told is a pretty heroic assumption.

I’ll leave it to people with stronger stomachs to pick the “study” apart.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 12, 2021 1:29 pm

The Yale 360 web site (https://e360.yale.edu/) is loaded with green propaganda. I post comments on most of their essays as “mountain man”. I deconstruct the propaganda for fun. Unlike this blog, few people post there.

gbaikie
December 12, 2021 11:51 am

Using wind power simply does not lower CO2 emission. It is simply a waste of time and resources.
Wind energy could be useful to some people, but governmental wind industry, is not helping some people who might find wind power useful.
One could say the global satellite industry which use solar panels {which is best way to get energy in orbit] has enable the use solar energy for some people {unlike governmental wind industry]. Both solar and wind energy generation on Earth surface is not a national solution for energy.
A national interest of energy should be to provide cheap, and reliable energy for its citizens.
Most or all governments are failing to do this, adequately. And their insistence on using wind or solar energy as solution, is misguided.
There is problem with using nuclear energy as governmental involvement with nuclear energy makes nuclear energy costly. South Korea government has so far done the best in terms making cheaper nuclear energy. South Korea had the advantage of learning from other nation’s failure. And building on that success, would a pathway towards a more global use of nuclear energy.
But in terms best solution to providing global energy, the Space Environment is probably the long-term solution. Or solar panels work in earth orbit, as they can create a constant source of power. Also, the space environment could distribute electrical power, globally.
But getting energy from Space is long term issue. A major problem is high cost to launch stuff
into space. Many find SpaceX’s desire [and ability] to dramatically lower launch cost, as a sign that using Space Power Satellite is becoming near term solution. But probably still something which will take a fair amount of time.
The present focus, should related to exploring the Moon and exploring Mars.
What this exploration could do, is lead to lower the cost of electrical power beyond Earth surface.
Space is similar to what was called third world countries. The problem for decades and currently, is that regions of world where there is poverty- is the access to to cheaper energy- so international funds focused on making hydro power [which provided power and water].
With Moon, you need water to make lunar rocket fuel, and one mine lunar water, one needs cheap electrical power. Or having lunar water, will cause more electrical power need, and lower the cost of electrical power on the Moon. Or having lunar water, will create a large market for electrical power. But it requires time and competition to cause cheaper prices of electrical power. So this could take decades to significantly drive down costs.
And Mars is similar to Moon. Having both Moon and Mars, rather one or the other, will shorten the time of getting electrical power in space cheaper than electrical power on Earth.
Once electrical is cheaper in space, the added cost of beaming power to earth surface, becomes possible.
Or using economy of scale now, in regards to Space power Satellites, will lower electrical costs on Earth surface- but it significantly lowers cost of electrical power in Space- but of course at moment they aren’t enough of a market in space for that much electrical power.
In long term future, Space will have cheaper electrical power and cheaper water than Earth.

ATheoK
December 12, 2021 2:48 pm

“It’s really out of control,” Steve says. “And no one knows about it.”

It’s worse than you imagine, Steve!
Got rare birds or bats in those Wilderness areas? You’ll find their bodies around the wind turbines.

Meanwhile, fossil fueled trucks and cars will be regularly driving around those Wilderness areas disturbing and destroying wildlife.
Pristine, is what those areas used to be, now they’re busy pseudo energy roadways.

You’ve got two choices, Steve, and renewable energy isn’t one of them.
1) If you truly believe fossil fuels are killing the world, throw off your clothes and shoes, trash your computer and phone and return to living naked in the bush.

2) Stop believing alarmist dooms! Pay attention to your own barometer and thermometer, start believing that Earth’s billions of years evolving, easily copes with a few degrees warming.

It’s Earth’s cooling you should fear. Earth’s millions of heavily glaciated years means that Earth is right now dangerously close to glaciation.

Sara
Reply to  ATheoK
December 12, 2021 6:40 pm

True, but Steve’s job should be to not just talk. He needs to be the lead in putting a stop to the confounded wind farms and the solar farms, and do more than just complain about his reality check.

It must have been quite a head thump when he realized that what he was supporting was worse than the prior alternative, all along.

chicago vota
December 12, 2021 5:29 pm

suck it swampie. you got what you wanted.

John Hultquist
December 12, 2021 7:46 pm

 There is a Nuclear facility in Washington State – –
Search for Columbia Generating Station

Using Google Earth, it appears to be about 9 square Kilometers with a perimeter of 11.5 K.

Its output can be seen here:
BPA Balancing Authority Load and Total Wind Generation

Info here:
Columbia Generating Station (energy-northwest.com)

Rich Lentz
December 13, 2021 6:10 pm

“It’s really out of control,” Steve says. “And no one knows about it.” I have been uploading pictures or links about the destruction on pro and con sceptic CC web sites for at least 20 years. Do those reading these sites just think it’s “misinformation?” Vermont looks more and more like West Virginia and the destruction caused by mining coal. I don’t even bother taking my camera with me when I take trips through New England.

Spurwing Plover
December 17, 2021 7:59 am

Their a hazard to Birds and their a total eyesore soil the view with ugly wind turbines ruin it for everyone

%d bloggers like this: