Many people have given both authoritative and anecdotal reasons why wind energy should never have been part of the mix. It's introduction will be blamed on the EU by eu-lab although if the truth is known, had they commissioned an exhaustive and honest financial and emissions cost benefit report then energy bills would have been 20-35% less than they are now.
Q. How do you persuade a gullible public to pay for a boondoggle that will cause energy bills to more than double?
A. Tell them it may save their grand children from suffering untold misery due to CO2 going from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.05% by offsetting 0.0002% that ~may cause the air in some places to be cooled by 0.005 to 0.02C by 2100 if all nations comply with a return to pre-industry life.
So, wind turbines or windmills as they are unaffectionately known.
First thing to understand is that they are hugely expensive at ~£2 million each for a land based 1.5mW turbine, installed. I haven't found the cost of sea farm turbines, £5-6 mil seems about right. Energy companies won't say how much straight out, preferring to give the cost per kW that varies from site to site depending on wind availability and is subjective in that ridiculous lifespans of up to 40 years are used and various items like maintenance and compensation are left out. Germany's experience showed an average life of ~12 years.
Next is to understand that the energy they produce is intermittent i.e. a turbine uses electricity to keep it spinning when there is no wind and average output in a very good year can be as much as 25% of rated maximum capacity. That means that energy companies have to have a backup energy source, ideally gas but there are insufficient plants so plants burning coal must be used. 90% of rated power (e.g. 1.5mW per turbine) is reasonable to avoid Brown-outs. The cost of backup plants needs to be included but never is.
Other items that are not normally included in cost include massive subsidies past 100% for sea farms, ongoing energy production subsidies, compensation to people who suffer physical and mental distress from the noise. In years to come there will probably be claims from as diverse interests as the tourist industry and nature conservationists, the former for loss of trade due to the destruction of scenes of natural beauty and the latter for many reasons from habitat destruction to the bird and bat kill that is alarming.
Then there is the cost per kW where that from turbines put their electricity in the luxury class even without considering the backup energy costs.
Is their inclusion in the energy mix justified?
On cost alone no private company, investor or bank would look at them without gov't guaranteed returns. They cannot stand alone.
Are they environmentally friendly?
That they kill wildlife and their build destroys habitat gives an immediate NO WAY.
Do they reduce fossil fuel dependence?
No. Their introduction into the energy mix requires near instantaneous response from fossil fuel energy plants to varying output of wind farms. Compared to their not being part of the energy mix, more fuel is burned because ramping the output of the reserve plants up and down compared to steady output is comparable to town driving versus motorway cruising.
Do they reduce CO2 emissions?
At the very best they cause no reduction and generally they cause increased emissions as mentioned. That is not including the emissions involved in construction, transport and installation nor the loss of CO2 absorbing ground.
What other costs are associated with wind farms that are not included in government and energy reports?
As the number of wind farms increases, energy companies will be unable to build new traditional energy plants. There will be Brown-outs due to increasing energy demands from a swelling immigrant population, industry growth, the introduction of electric cars and normal increase in use of electricity as the climate cools. Because eu-lab, banks and the EC-EU have busted the country, traditional energy plants are expensive and not affordable, even as essential reserve energy sources. So National Grid has come up with a scam, I mean plan to borrow £22bil to upgrade infrastructure and connect the UK to cheap continental power sources like Poland that gets their energy in surplus from coal. The repayment of capital and interest will be passed to end users.
Alongside that there will be the cost and maintenance of spy meters.
So we come to this, why on Earth did eu-lab agree to install them and borrow money to subsidise them? Why didn't the then opposition object?
Why are the con-eu and eu-lib dims continuing to support the fraud?
It's a boondoggle that profits only banks and private investors at the expense of taxpayers and users.
Every MP should have one in his backyard
Bird and bat kills,
link1(100,000),
link2 (9,500),
link3 (75,000 - 275,000 birds)
link4 (16,000)
Health risks,
link1,
link2 ,
link3
Despoilment of sites of natural beauty,
link (check the view from Snowdonia)
Substitute for building local plants - Cost of linking to the continent and upgrading infrastructure to handle "drunken" wind energy,
link
How are wind farms financed? The gov takes money from energy suppliers (cost passed to end user) and borrows (cost passed to taxpayers) then gives it to developers,
link
"
NM Rothschild, the investment bank, which has a close relationship with the Treasury, has proposed the levy to fund new power infrastructure. Sources close to the Treasury indicate that the proposal is based on a levy of about £2 per megawatt hour on the wholesale price of electricity, which is currently about £45 per mwh."
How else are end users and taxpayers being stiffed,
link
Kent Hawkins:
Analysis I, II, III, IV, V
Case studies I, II, III, IVSummary of Dutch and Bentek studies
Table 2 provides an overview of the findings of this series on wind integration. In summary, the Netherlands experience is that at wind penetration of about 3% the fossil fuel and CO2 emissions saving is reduced to zero. As wind penetration is increased, the Colorado and Texas experience shows that the savings become negative, that is, fossil fuel and CO2 emissions are increased. The integration of all the considerations for the three approaches is complex and necessarily simplified. Any additional insights are welcome.
Big Wind: How Many Households Served, What Emissions Reduction?
I,
II
"
The project sponsors claim that they will provide enough energy to serve 235,000 households and reduce CO2 output by 1.5 million tonnes annually.
Part I demonstrated that the served-household claims is fanciful. In reality, no more than 49,000 households could be “supplied”, and these with only a minimal degree of assurance. Indeed, the wind project is more costly than a diesel backup scheme that would actually be capable of supplying reliable power to several hundred thousand households. The wind project is also three times more costly than a replacement of just 211 MW of older coal capacity with new technology that would provide a similar reduction in emissions, while supplying firm power to the NW Power Pool’s customers.
Heritage Foundation Windpower Study: Response to Center for American Progress
Beyond NIMBY: [Not in my backyard]
A Grassroots Strategy to Defeat Windpower
Emission cuts realities for electricity generation – costs and CO2 emissions
Huhne wants to meet EU CO2 reduction obligations subscribed to by eu-lab with con-eu complicity.
C. Booker mentioned "
The 3,000 already built provide on average no more electricity than a single medium-sized conventional power station, and the more [wind farms] we build, the more we will have to build CO2-emitting power stations, costing billions of pounds, simply to provide back-up for when the wind is not blowing."
Source
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm 0.2% for 24 hours. 3000 windmills. Ludicrous.
To meet cloud cuckoo land targets of CO2 reductions is impossible using wind. Assuming more expensive "cheap" EU energy is used to provide backup, to meet energy plant replacement with wind, 80% of ~850,000 mW per day would require 680,000 mW from farms. With supreme optimism assume 25% of every 1.5mW turbine, 0.375mW can be delivered, the total number required would be 680000/0.375mW gives 1,813,333, 20% gives 453,333 turbines. Plus 10% for surplus to cover maintenance and breakdown and replacement - every 12 years or so.
In reality, although turbines are available to work 24/7 demand and the wind varies 24/7.
The actual amount of useful energy from wind is around 8%.
How do you make luxury priced energy provided by windmills competitive with far cheaper (by 4-5 times) coal and gas? Simple, make coal and gas energy more expensive. Tax it and force the providers by law to buy carbon credits or fit carbon capture and storage.
Booker again, "
Although the EU's new Industrial Emissions Directive has extended the time we are allowed to keep six of our ageing coal-fired power plants running, Mr Huhne will allow no new ones to be built unless they are fitted with "carbon capture and storage" – which, despite a Government-estimated cost of £14 billion, is never going to work.
There is no aspect of this Government's energy policy which is not based on wishful thinking and complete technical illiteracy. It talks of spending up to £30 billion on a Severn Barrage to supply "five gigawatts" of electricity, when in reality it would only intermittently produce on average 1.9 gigawatts, less than the output of a single coal-fired power station. For the same money, eight new nuclear plants could produce seven times as much power, reliably and round the clock."
Huhne is against nuclear unless someone else pays for it as per EU directives. No private investment profit perhaps. More likely to avoid investment going that way.
"...
there is absolutely nothing wrong with Miriam Gonzalez - the City lawyer who just happens to be married to deputy Cleggeron leader Nick Clegg - joining the board of Spanish infrastructure group Acciona.
And the fact that this group specialises, amongst other things, in developing wind farm sites will have no effect on the thinking of Nick Clegg. He is after all already supportive of this stupidity, rather like his boss, the Boy Cameron."
Link
Darling's £0.5bn offshore windfarm 'leccy-bill stealth levy
Quick Facts
Wind and Cap-and-trade
Wind and Natural Gas
Wind and Cost
Wind and the Energy Rot in Denmark
Why Wind Technology Is Problematic
Country Guardian is the National Campaign to oppose wind turbines in Britain's precious landscapes and promote energy conservation.
http://www.countryguardian.net/
This website contains a comprehensive database about wind energy, including the List of UK Wind Farm Action Groups. This contains links to over 230 UK Windfarm Action Groups as well as international links, and well-researched articles about all aspects of windfarms, news links etc.
Openview Newsletter Spring 2010
The Case Against Windfarms
- A nonprofit corporation formed as a coalition of citizens and grassroots groups. We seek to promote knowledge and raise awareness of the risks and damaging impacts of industrial wind turbine development, including the environmental, social, and quality-of-life impacts.
http://www.wind-watch.org/
"
This is not green energy but a destructive boondoggle. It is even more intolerable that we as taxpayers are paying for it -- in so many ways", says NWW member Sue Sliwinski of New York.
Since the IEA shows that large-scale wind energy will not change anything for the better, and increasing evidence shows how much damage it does, National Wind Watch says that conserving even a small amount of electricity every year is obviously a better choice.
- Issues and Concerns for Wind Turbines in Highland County, VA.
http://johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/
- Citizens, residents and neighbors concerned about ill-conceived wind turbine projects in the town of Cohocton and adjacent townships in Western New York.
http://www.cohoctonwindwatch.org/
- For Responsible Regulation.
http://www.windtruth.org/
- The Glebe Mountain Group (GMG) is a voluntary association of residents and property owners in the Glebe Mountain region of Vermont. The group was formed in response to concerns about a proposal by Catamount Energy to install 27 wind turbines 330 feet tall, lighted 24 hours a day, along a three and one-half mile stretch of Glebe Mountain in Londonderry, VT.
http://www.glebemountaingroup.org/
www.windaction.org/
Also
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5858989/How-can-wind-turbines-generate-so-much-lunacy.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1199535/CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER-Wind-farms-monument-age-leaders-collectively-went-heads.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029551/A-load-hot-air-Why-spending-100bn-windfarms-EU-Labours-greatest-act-lunacy.html
Wind Power: Green and Deadly
***************************************
Gang-green has
near bankrupted Spain
Gang-green has near
bankrupted California
And of course the only reason the UK isn't where Greece is is that the gov't bonds don't expire for a while.
Summary.
Compared to conventional sources of energy wind energy is 4 to 5 times as expensive.
Wind farms require 90% backup by fossil fuel plants so the turbines are no more than a poor duplication of energy supply.
Wind energy does not reduce CO2 emissions and does not reduce fossil fuel use.
The noise from turbines is hazardous to health.
Turbines kill birds and bats in vast numbers and destroy habitat.
To integrate more wind energy requires the infrastructure to be upgraded, costed in billions.
To use continental energy is more expensive than home made conventional energy plants.
Because of the senseless obeisance to EC-EU dictats (that lowers the authority of this gov't to that of a pariah council) there is a moratorium on building conventional energy plants. Huhne, in a fop to lunacy said they can be built as long as another hugely expensive and infeasible boondoggle, CCS is included.
Bonus.
Expensive energy is driving business into the ground or abroad and increasing energy poverty.
Eon 2005
"
Wind energy cannot replace conventional power stations to any significant extent...The more wind power capacity [on] the grid, the lower the percentage of traditional generation it can replace."
Even before that was known, it was common knowledge that
wind fails to deliver.
Even micro installations
A report to the gov't
The Economics of Renewable Energy that gets backup energy figures wrong. Eon in the link above said at least 90% backup would be needed.
Turbine technology is already out of date, vertical fans are more efficient.
Wind energy is not and will never be feasible without energy storage.
People don't like them.
eu-lab knew that. con-eu and eu-lib dims know it. It is a proven boondoggle and people should be before an independent (not politically controlled) judge. Under oath to find out why wind energy has been forced on an unwitting population.
There is
NO JUSTIFICATION for wind energy. Period.
Wind farms and biofuel providers must be penalised for CO2 emissions if the crazy carbon emissions policy remains in force.
And what will be the effect of taking all that energy out of the air? No-one knows nor is even asking.
Source:
withouthotair.blogspot.com/2010/01/wind-farm-wakes.html
The claim that Denmark derives about 20% of its electricity from wind overstates matters. Being highly intermittent, wind power has recently (2006) met as little as 5% of Denmark’s annual electricity consumption with an average over the last five years of 9.7%.
Denmark sells WE to other countries cheap and when it needs energy to meet demand, buys it dear. In effect storing the energy then paying a levy to use it, hiking the cost of the luxury energy even more.
Germany is replacing past their use by date nuclear reactors with ... coal.
End piece. There is more to this story but even this post makes it clear the authorities should never have imposed wind energy on a gullible public. Continuing to do so is likely collusion to criminally misuse funds.
Source:
withouthotair.blogspot.com/2009/07/most-inaccurate-numbers-in-right-wing.html
*******************************
WUWT - A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around
Climate Realists
Abstract:
By applying generally accepted algorithms on radiative heat transfer, verified through experimentation by Hottel, Leckner(1) and other contemporary scientists and engineers(2)(3)(4), I demonstrate that carbon dioxide molecules do not possess the thermal properties to be able to cause global warming or climate change here on Earth.
Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy
Fraud 5. Biofuel Boondoggle
Fraud 6. AGW by CO2 is settled science (by consensus)
Fraud 7. The IPCC - Its Reason For Being
