Hi Jennifer.
Following is a request for help!
Tonyfromoz kindly did an excellent article titled Wind Power Australia – The Musselroe Wind Farm Travesty in Tasmania
It is a very good summary of the situation from both the viability and value claims for the energy and the obvious hypocrisy of The Greens, other environmentalists and groups.
I am trying to raise world awareness of the devastation that is about to be unleashed at Musselroe Bay, already a designated Conservation area and one of the most environmentally fragile environments in Tasmania. Together with the nearby Mt.William National Park, home to many species of native wildlife, plants, endangered birdlife including wedgetail eagles, and in the path of at least three migratory bird species including the legendary mutton bird, the whole area encompasses some of the most naturally beautiful places on Earth.
A documented template of what is about to happen was recorded by those locals who unsuccessfully opposed the Cefn Croes wind development, the largest onshore windfarm in Wales. They made a photographic record of the whole environmentally disastrous venture there.
Google “Cefn Croes campaign website” and check the photo gallery.
Tasmania is the current home of both Bob Brown, who led the successful “Save the Franklin” campaign and Christine Milne, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens. In a further twist, the Tasmanian Greens supported Labor after a “hung” election and Greens Leader Nick McKim and his partner Cassie O’Oconnor were rewarded with Cabinet posts. Cassie, who is Minister for Climate Change gained much of her public profile in the successful “Save Ralphs Bay” campaign.
What an incredible irony that these four prominent Greens are cheerleaders in a push that will destroy the Musselroe Bay Conservation area. Whilst celebrities and various leading environmental protestors flocked to Tasmania from all over the world to “Save the Franklin”, they are now conspicuously absent and silent while this travesty proceeds. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the political and ideological selectiveness they use to decide whether they support or oppose desecration of pristine areas!
You may feel it worthwhile doing an article or commenting in some way but any help would be appreciated. As usual, our MSM are silent on any downsides of the development.
Best wishes to all,
Keith H.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Just put it on Facebook, with comment. Outrageous .
Twice I’ve been the Canberra for CO2 tax protests and twice the almighty turbines were impotent.Not a breath of air.They are a joke costing us a fortune.
BTW Jennifer, I sent and email to Jo Nova for a marketing idea ie, T Shirts etc.”Global Warming is Really Cool” She liked the idea but needs to act.
Thanks Jen, Keith H and Tony for this timely post.
For the Bob Brown’s, gavins and so-called environmental activists etc of this world to be remaining silent in the teeth of this assault on reason is the height of utter hypocricy.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service data show that wind turbines slaughter around 400,000 birds every year.
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2012/01/16/charles_manson_energy
The only people who support wind [and solar] are fools, liars, people making a buck from them or all 3.
Thanks to all commenters so far, but particularly to Ian Thomson for “taking up the baton” and putting it on Facebook and to Spangled Drongo for that great link again highlighting not only the slaughter and devastation happening, but the silence of those who normally put themselves forward as champions of endangered species and the environment. Amongst others, I’m indebted to TonyfromOz for providing the ammunition and to Jennifer for kindly providing the launching pad to give me a voice and the empowerment to do what I felt I had to. Thanks too, to Jo Nova who allowed me to “hijack” one of her threads to start off this whole endeavour.
I feel this transcends both politics and whatever side one is on in the AGW debate. Essentially all I’m asking is for people to access the TonyfromOz article for background, go through the Cefn Croes Photo Gallery and on a personal level as responsible and caring citizens ask yourselves whether you’re comfortable with what is happening and whether you can stand idly by without trying to stop it. There will be many people who will want to “shoot the messenger” (me) but that doesn’t affect either me, or the truth and stark reality of the message!
I’m a very unremarkable person but the ripples of my little “pebble in the pond” are already spreading out fast far and wide. It will cost you nothing but a small slice of your time to help and the majority of you will have far more skills than I’ve ever possessed, particularly in IT and social networking! Will you help spread those ripples round the world?
My very best wishes to all who visit here. Thank you. KeithH
This is all based on the capacity of Vesta to deliver the turbines. Unfortunately Vesta is laying off workers worldwide.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/01/renewable-energy_misery_spread.html
Here’s a site that monitors the output of all the Australian wind farms set to new years day 2012’s output.
http://windfarmperformance.info/?date=2012-01-01
speaks for itself.
I’v got a mate who has travelled via Canberra ACT a number of times to the NSW coast and passes a number of these generators during the trip.
He and others are amazed at the number of blades that are stationary every time he goes past in his car. He wonders if they ever really rotate at all.
I think it was Lombard who said Germany had spent 70 billion on heavily subsidised solar energy and it only returned a tiny fraction ( 1%?) of their total energy useage.
Renewable energy is a total fraud and CON and will never , ever replace coal or gas or whatever fossil fuel energy is used. Also it can’t and won’t change the climate or even help to change the climate.
Of course Hydro is another matter for those countries lucky enough or intelligent enough to use this renewable source.
I think the bird deaths are the issue that people should use to help wake these idiots up to the fact that endangered species are being needlessly slaughtered just because clueless govts have fallen for this fraudulent, super expensive CON.
John Sayers above provided a link showing Wind Farm Performance on January 01.
Sometimes charts like these are not easy to understand or to get in context, as there is a plethora of information, and because of exigencies of scale, graphs can look similar.
Go to the second chart down at that link, which shows the total output from every Wind Plant in Australia, and note the scale on the vertical axis, in MegaWatts, (MW) and compare that to the scale on the third of those charts, Electricity Demand, also in MW.
Now, on that total for Wind, see where Wind is providing its most power, Midnight, around 900MW. Compare that same time period on total Australian Demand, 20,000MW, and this shows that at Midnight, with most people tucked up safely in bed, those Wind towers are ‘turning and burning’ and they are supplying 4.5% of all Australian consumed power.
Now, note when the total output from all Australian Wind Plants is at its lowest, around 3PM, and that total is around 100MW, while total Australian Demand is close to its peak of 24,000MW, effectively meaning that Wind is supplying 0.41% of Australia’s total power needs.
That total for 3PM of 100MW is all the power that is being produced out of a total of more than 2,000MW of wind towers.
Look at that chart on any day and the percentages are roughly the same, so while Wind provides its power for most hours of the day, it’s usually not when its most needed.
See now how Wind can never be relied upon to provide power to fill any needs.
Also, note how when Australians are all tucked up in bed how much electrical power is still needed.
That is what Base Load is, an absolute physical requirement for vast amounts of power to be available throughout every hour of every day.
Tony.
Oh for goodness sake!
Why oh why aren’t people with common sense and practical knowledge like Tony listened to?
I swear that most people do not understand how much they actually rely on base load power, right down to their ability to flush their toilets.
They certainly would not have the access to all the propaganda that claims that the production of that very same product is inherently evil. Where did common sense go?
Can I also ask what appears to me to be an obvious question?
Would the hydro plan they canned in the 80’s be a much better option as far as renewable energy goes?
Is there a way to compare impacts on the environment and reliable power delivery?
I can’t help thinking that maybe they should have built that dam?
Of course the Tasmanian Greens could never go there, especially Bob 🙂
But that’s about politics, not about practical and sensible planning.
I don’t think preserving political reputations is a good reason to make a mistake that future generations will have to pay for?
Tony
A while back, I was present in the control room of Loy Yang power station at 3pm then again at 3am (part of a project we were involved in)
The power demand had barely dropped (<2%) from 3pm to 3am. The MSM never publicise this, nor how the randomly intermittent and very large gap between wind power supply and base load demand is managed. Not only is this not publicised, it is not acknowledged to exist
ianl8888,
that’s a wonderful example of something people do not realise.
Those large scale coal fired plants supply that absolute requirement. While ever the generators at those Plants are running they are supplying their maximum power, huge amounts of power from each one of them. They just hum along day and night at the same maximum rate.
Their only down time is for scheduled maintenance and fault rectification. At those down times, other plants take up the slack, some of them also large scale coal fired plants, used as spinning reserve, so that they are ready at a moments notice to supply those large scale amounts of power when those operational ones do go down.
Wind power can never be used to supply that large scale Base Load power that is required to be reliable and constant 24/7/365.
Wind Power can never supply the back up if it may be needed at a moments notice.
Wind Power can never supply Peaking Power, also required absolutely, also needed to be steady and reliable, and also at known dedicated periods of time.
Because of all these things, if Wind Power is to be relied upon to make up part of what is required for Demand, then, as I mentioned above, those spinning reserve plants still need to be operational at a moments notice if, as per that Wind performance chart, the wind drops and the power also drops.
Wind Power will always require backup, so even spurious claims that they are reducing CO2 emissions is a furphy spun up by those who think that this is the ‘way of the future’.
Tony.
A public meeting has been called in our area on Australia Day by Beyond Zero Emissions to explain to us how 100% of renewable energy using today’s technology will provide all our energy requirements within 10 years at the very reasonable sum of $8 per week per household.
Armed with that knowledge I will then return here to acquaint you lot with your abject ignorance on wind farms, solar power systems etc.
It’s always possible of course that the “science” has been “interpolated” similarly to this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/20/the-birth-of-cgr-science/#more-55044
spangled drongo January 21st, 2012 at 11:18 am
Thanks for that WUWT link sd. Best laugh I’ve had for months. Willis has outdone himself and really said it as it is! I’ve often thought that one of the best ways to tackle this whole charade is with humour and ridicule. It’s such a fertile field!
sd:
A smarter move is to attend this public meeting and ask the pointed questions that Tony and I pose here … you’ll get chucked out, of course 🙂
Ian, appreciate your and Tony’s comments. I suspect they will come on with spiel such as, “we will have to get smart and distribute our baseload over much broader periods,” etc but you can imagine if we are to run our cars on electricity to avoid the dreaded CO2, our baseload will be 24/7/365. We will be charging car batteries all night.
Hope they allow questions from the floor.
These so-called “greens” aren’t really interesting in the environment. They are interested in using environmental concerns to use as a lever to manipulate masses of people.
Inside each wind turbine is a lot of copper and rare-earth metals. Where do you suppose they come from? Would one of these greens like to live next to a copper mine or smelter?
Probably not. They don’t care about the environmental damage those things do or how fragile they are (rarely lasting more than 5 years).
The whole lot of them need to be completely and thoroughly ignored.
Hi George B. You’re spot on. Google ‘Baotou and pollution’ and click on ‘In China, the true cost of Britains clean green wind power’. Baotou is considered the rare earth capital of the world where much of the neodymium required for the magnets in wind turbines is mined and processed. I put this link on the activist “Getup” site together with a comment some months ago on and drew the following response: “There’s a little pollution poblem somewhere. So what? ” How does one answer someone with that type of mentality who imagines themself to be deeply concerned about the environment?
Note to Jennifer. Thanks to you, the ripples of my little “pebble in the Internet pond” seem to have spread far and wide already. A Google search on the title of my post brings up 93,500 results in 22 seconds.
Amazing!
Hey SD – where and when? I’ll be there.
john@johnlsayers.com
The thing that always brings a warm glow is the gut wrenching hypocrisy selectively applied by the inmates here.
If it had been a bloody big dam – well that would do the environment good. What’s a few smashed bum-breathing turtle shells in the way of progress.
Animals threatened with extinction – hah hah hah ha – well animals go extinct all the time.
Pristine wilderness – what indulgence – humans are part of the landscape goes up the cry ! Humans first – environment second.
A birdy hitting a fan blade – surely on par with grenade doing it’s usual near-miss of a whale cranium.
And a bloody good cut and burn in forest management does the wildlife a power of good Cinders tells me – surely a few whirly thingys wouldn’t hurt.
And who says the the resident birds will be affected? where the data? Probably make them more agile. Do’em good in fact.
And what about the sheer alarmism “What an incredible irony that these four prominent Greens are cheerleaders in a push that will destroy the Musselroe Bay Conservation area’
DESTROY ! oh come on – how could they destroy it – how alarmist.
And such sudden concern about rare earths – in fact I personally know that all libertarians and conservatives here have personally handed in their mobile phones, tablets, IPads and laptops. And have donated their rare earth indulgent consumer electronics to Greenpeace. Now THIS is commitment.
Or could it be that someone is having a sook about a NIMBY issue of development?
The turbines need to be dismantled, at however high a cost, now. I lived with these medieval piles of junk as I crossed rural Spain on foot. There, at least, the land was already mostly bare, unlike in Australia. Something that doesn’t get mentioned (or photographed) is the endless cabling across the landscape, which is far more intrusive than the actual bird-mincers. Of course, it was all done with someone else’s euros back in the good old days before ’08. Of course, power can always be purchased just across the border, from a country that made a very, very good decision in the seventies, when all looked lost. That big play by the Pompidou government did not involve bird-mincers or solar panels.
The modernisation of our coal power generation, as described more than once and in detail by Tony, needs to start now. Any of our Green Betters giving a feeble nod to nukes needs to be put on the spot immediately concerning a time table and practical measures for the introduction of said nukes. I get the impression that the Green pro-nuclear stance is a GetUp stunt. They like to give a lofty consent, but treat nukes as something that will happen organically or by osmosis if energy is taxed to the ceiling. It’s the taxes that they like, not the nukes.
France took its big decision in a time when their coal was all but gone, and what else did they have? Some gas near the Pyrenees? We are not in that dire situation. But do we need to be desperate to be smart?
Let the poorest Australians have all the heating, cooling, washing and cooking energy that they want. Let energy be universally cheap and available. Let’s establish that as a baseline, since it is achievable. And let’s build dams so people can flush HARD and flush ONCE. Effective sewage and plumbing is another baseline. If we are going to ban anything, let’s ban toilets that don’t flush properly, because they are an insult and a hazard to humanity.
Tasmania already has other wind farms, at Woolnorth there are 37 ninety-nine metre tall turbines at Bluff Point, that the kill rare and endangered wedge tailed eagles see the greens media release about one of the estimated 17 killed at http://mps.tas.greens.org.au/2010/11/wedge-tailed-eagle-death-at-woolnorth-was-only-successful-fledgling-for-the-year-more-monitoring-and-modelling-needed/
Musselroe is in the NE, where there are also Wedge tailed eagles which according to evidence given on behalf of the watermelon Bob Brown’s Federal Court case against Forestry, are just about extinct. see http://www.on-trial.info/eagle.htm
Yet green hypocrites have urged the government to give more financial assistance (taxpayers dollars) to build the Musselroe windmills.
Hi Luke
I can understand where you are coming from. But for the practical, a dam is a proven technology with some environmental downsides while a modern windmill has more downsides than upsides.
I personally would like to see more research into solar and wind. They shouldn’t be subsidised or promoted as environmentally friendly.
The thing I like about wind & solar [W&S] is they are being promoted as new technology; actually the age of wind was the 1800’s; and solar has been around even longer:
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mirrors.htm
W&S supporters are actually Luddites and misonewists; with their desire to leave things alone and retreat to old technologies it’s also obvious they are sufferers of ‘Future Shock’.
Poor dears; they should be given kites and told to go out and play with them in thunderstorms.
“The impact assessment procedure needs an overhaul. Consultants’ independence should be encouraged, protected, and guaranteed, while in reality the opposite is occurring. We have an absurd system where developers are asked to assess with their hired guns (consultants) the damage their projects will cause to the environment. Who would be naïve enough to ask Exxon to assess the damage done by the Exxon Valdez? ”
http://www.iberica2000.org/es/Articulo.org/es/Articulo.asp?Id=4361
For the main site with many links to excellent relevant articles:
http://www.iberica2000.org/es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
Why is it left to a Spanish based organisation to defend what the Tasmanian and Australian Governments and Greens won’t, even though they are aware of and acknowledge the huge problem? Just how independent is the consultant firm Biosis Research Pty.Ltd? Check the above links and make up your own minds.
Thanks Jen,
I think you answered my question in general terms.
Luke, the issue is that wind power & solar power are being subsidised and promoted as environmentally friendly and their efficiency is also being grossly overstated. At this point they are not capable of replacing the base load we all rely so heavily on. That does not mean that one day someone won’t figure it out.
In the meantime, why are we going ahead with projects like these when they can’t deliver AND despite the noise otherwise, they do in fact impact the environment?
Why are we making expensive errors in the name of the environment when the real issue is we are soon going to find ourselves short of reliable base load power?
There are proven technologies available that can deliver and can be delivered responsibly in terms of reliability, economics and a clear understanding of environmental impacts.
To pretend we can do anything progressive without impacting the environment in some way is just silly. That is man’s natural behaviour
And when the deck collapses,it is every man for himself and all care- no responsibility for Govt agencies. Note Marc Morano bid not write this. The MSM found the story.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/01/19/bankrupt-solyndra-caught-destroying-brand-new-parts/
Luke, this particular project is just State sponsored vandalism ,for NO environmental gain. Nor any gain for the country.
As a bloke who has such a downer on the environmental impact of storing floodwater, for watering dry country on demand.- Thereby providing both food and permanent wildlife habitat, I guess you don’t like birds much , so chopping a few up is probably not a worry.
Hi Luke.
Being a bit of a stirrer myself sometimes, I recognise you as a first class one so it would be pointless to try and answer each of your little gems.
What your post does however, is to highlight that it’s not only beauty that is in the eye of the beholder, but also destruction, development, alarmism and any other perception one likes to name. It’s called having a point of view and thankfully people like you and me are still free to express it.
Apart from having personally enjoyed the beauty and peace of the Musselroe and Mt.William areas, my belief and motivation is that people have the right to access all the facts in order to come to their own particular opinion. For many reasons, that has not been happening and one is that investigative and objective journalism seems to have become a lost art and the MSM is now just a place which simply prints, reads out or editorialises PR handouts from organisations pushing their own biased agenda. A disillusioned public has now turned to the Internet and blogs like this to research matters for themselves and discuss their opinions with others. On that basis your contribution is welcomed.
One comment I will answer is about “having a sook about a NIMBY issue of development?”. I can’t answer for anyone else, but it was certainly not an issue for me when starting this endeavour and never even crossed my mind. Some of my questions (and answers) were: Is this particular project needed in Tasmania? No. Are there better less damaging alternatives for providing the same amount of power. Yes. Will it make any contribution to saving the environment? No. Will it harm the environment? Yes. Are there any alternative sites which would be less damaging to birdlife and the enviroment in general. Yes. Will it make any impact on cutting pollution? No. (and there’s another whole different argument on what actually constitutes pollution). Will it have any significant measurable short or longterm effect on climate. No. Given the turbines relatively short lifespan does it provide any longterm benefits or solutions? No. Have demonstrably false and misleading claims been made by those pushing the project? Yes. (The original article of TonyfromOz highlighted in my main post graphically demonstrates this). Have the Greens, environmental groups, individual environmentalists, Labor, Liberal and Independent MPs been hypocritical in their support of this project? Yes. Have the public been given all the facts? No.
I’ll wish you the best and leave you with an oldie but a goodie. To thine own self be true! In other words we must each try to do whatever we feel is right!
What gets me in all of this is the hypocrisy of some people in the environmental movement, who protested so loudly about the Franklin, and then seemingly turn the other way when something like this Wind Plant is proposed.
People have little idea of the scale of size of these huge towers, unless they actually see one of them ‘in the flesh’, close up, because all you ever see are images of them in photographs at sites, and that doesn’t really give an indication as to the size.
Go again to my Post at the link and have a look at the image at the bottom of the Post, and sorry if it seems like I’m ‘shilling’ for more visits to that Post, but this does give an idea of that scale of size.
Click on that last image and it will open on a new and larger page, and when it does, then click on the image again. Then scroll down and look at the Land Cruiser at the base of the tower to give you some idea of the size of this particular tower.
That image is of an Enercon E40, this one situated at Nine Mile Beach near Esperance in W.A.
This wind tower can generate 600KW at maximum. It is 46 Metres tall to the hub, and the blades extend that height by a further 20 metres. (E40 meaning in this case a 40 Metre diameter)
Now try and relate that to this proposed Wind Plant at Musselroe Bay on the NE tip of Tasmania.
The Vestas V90-3(MW) will be 105 Metres tall at the hub, well more than twice the height of the Enercon Tower in the image with a blade sweep taking that height out to 150 Metres, well more than three times the height of this tower in the image shown there.
There will be 56 of these towers.
They have to dig up the area for the hundreds of tons of concrete footings for each of them, make access roads to the site and to each tower.
Now, while the ‘bird chopping’ aspect, the loss of environmental aspect, the disturbance of the land in the area, and the noise, are all important factors, by far the most important factor is that the power actually supplied is still only marginal.
With respect to noise, and this is often passed off as being somehow psychosomatic, it actually is an important factor.
Remember the situation some years back now of the ‘supposed’ problem of electro magnetic radiation from High Tension wires across the countryside, and the reports of the adverse health effects they caused, and how Governments of every persuasion threw literally tens to hundreds of millions at that in studies, investigations, papers, etc, with respect to this perceived problem.
Now, compare that to what is happening with the possible adverse health effects of the noise being generated from these Wind Plants (now a recognised disorder, called Wind Turbine Syndrome) and how this is being literally passed off as ho hum, no problem here.
That noise is actually quite significant, and here’s the link to the Vestas V90-3(MW), and you’ll need a Reader, as it’s a pdf document.
http://www.vestas.com/Files/Filer/EN/Brochures/Vestas_V_90LOW.PDF
There are some wonderful images at that link that show some scale of size, if you can imagine it.
Now, scroll down almost to the bottom where it details the Technical data, and it shows in that information Noise levels for different speeds. Admitted this is taken directly at the tower itself, but noise still carries, gradually losing intensity over distance.
Either way that noise is still quite significant, between 98 and 107dB.
The Australian Standard Maximum Noise level is set at 85dB maximum, and the dB scale is logarithmic.
Again, all these things are important, but it seems every one of them, both individually, and collectively are being passed over, ignored, and marginalised because Wind Power is somehow okay.
That’s the hypocrisy I see, but as someone from the electrical trade, the most important this is that these Plants just fail to deliver the power they are purported to replace, and for a horrendous cost that is subsidised with taxpayer dollars.
I know what I say sometimes sounds like a bit of a ‘rant’ but most average people have no idea, and any information that they do seek to find is worded in a manner that is not easy to correctly decipher, something that those who propose these plants are relying upon.
56 Towers 105 metres high.
Sorry to take so much space with this.
Tony.
ERROR CORRECTION – Maths mistake – age induced temporary brain fade
There’s a slight error in the above narrative, and I apologise for that.
I mentioned that the Vestas Tower is more than three times the height to the blade tip when compared to the image of the Enercon tower.
The error is that I neglected to add on the blade length to the Enercon Tower quoting that three times only compared to the height of the tower itself, neglecting to add on the blade length, so that height is not more than three times the height, but only more than twice the height.
Again wrt the noise aspect, I’ll direct you to a site, and I rarely use Wikipedia references due to the inherent bias, but here I want you to consider something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_noise#Health_effects
Note here it mentions the documented health effects related to different levels of noise.
I wonder why noise effects are documented here as being of concern when it’s aircraft noise, but scoffed at and passed off when it is associated with Wind Turbines.
Tony.
“I wonder why noise effects are documented here as being of concern when it’s aircraft noise, but scoffed at and passed off when it is associated with Wind Turbines.”
Excellent point TonyOz. But then AGW ‘theory’ and ‘solutions’ are not renowned for consistency or realism.
What really anoys me is the fact that wind and solar are a complete and utter fraud and 100% CON job.
If this idiot govt is so concerned about CAGW ( they’re obviously not ) why not just reduce our normal coal exports each year by say 5% and that amount would easily cover our use of coal and a new CFired power station built occasionly every 5/ 10 years or so.
The total co2 emitted would be the same and we wouldn’t have to worry about using useless solar or wind ever again. A simple agreed formula could be used that all parties agreed with and even labor and the greens should have a clear conscience.
But we know that they don’t think that CAGW is the “greatest moral issue of our time”, and they just want to play silly buggers for zero return on the billions flushed down the drain and paid for by the poor Aussie taxpayer.
I suspect the low frequency noise problem people complain about, yet no one can measure, is caused by the low frequencies created by the rotating blades resonating the huge vertical column that supports the turbine , like a didgeridoo, and then is dispersed into that huge concrete block in the ground. I would assume that the resonance of all the towers combined could very well transmit through the ground to the surrounding area and resonate the surrounding homes at very low frequencies.
More up to date news on the solar fraud in Germany and Italy. Take away the subsidies and the whole fraudulent rotten mess would collapse in a heap.
http://thegwpf.org/international-news/4803-solar-stocks-plunge-worldwide-as-germany-vows-to-phase-out-subsidies.html
I see ‘boiling oceans” Hansen is now wondering why it hasn’t been warming as much lately.
Seems it could even be due to solar perhaps, what hopeless whackos.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hansen_excuses_the_lack_of_warming/
Cons and frauds we’re surrounded by cons and frauds.
KeithH – looks dreadful and a problematic technology – but I’m a sympathetic soul. So keep protesting. Just reminding others here of less sympathy for other like issues?
Geezzz Luke it’s a tad more serious than a dreadful and problematic technology, it’s a full blown con and fraud. Without taxpayer subsidy this fraudulent industry couldn’t exist.
I’d also like to know what lack of sympathy there is and for what other issues?
It is essentially a European disease. Let’s hope they smarten up soon:
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/20/from-rescuing-the-climate-to-rescuing-the-economy-germanys-energy-transition-goes-into-reverse/
Not looking good for the solar PV industry:
http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LY3AJ31A74E901-703SIP1EKP1CK27FVGL5LB0GP8
Luke. Thank you for the support and that very gracious admission. Like Jennifer, I was very aware of where you were coming from, but in expressing it you were a bit confrontational. Without knowing for sure, it doesn’t pay to assume that posters here or anywhere else for that matter, don’t have sympathy for some or all of the causes you allude to. This particular cause is pushing my buttons now and obviously many support me. I wish you success in pursuing whatever is pushing your buttons.
Geezzz Spangled it looks like the Germans are slowly starting to begin a lesson in simple kindy maths. Fancy Aussies going down this clueless road , wasting countless billions just to make our energy supply less efficient and hopelessly unreliable.
What a pity we can’t get our barking mad govt to an election pronto. The Germans have wasted 70 billion on this rubbish for a tiny percentage of solar power to the grid and definitely zero change to the temp and climate.
Hi Debbie, If you’re still with us I’ll provide a detailed response to your question soon. I had it done yesterday but regrettably had a computer (operator!) malfunction and lost the lot.
Meanwhile, for anyone who hasn’t done so, check the WUWT link provided by: Comment from: spangled drongo January 21st, 2012 at 11:18 am.
Enter the world of CGR, Computer Generated Reality, which certain modern day scientists create and live in to provide us with “settled science” and “overwhelming consensus”.
In another example of blatant hypocrisy, The Greens have made dams a dirty word in Australia, yet they and the Government are quite happy to enable the buying of carbon credits from scams such as these.
“Environmental lobby group International Rivers has condemned the emergence of trade in fake carbon credits and says the biggest source is hydroelectric power projects on the mainland.”
http://www.internationalrivers.org/node/5265
http://www.internationalrivers.org/blog/lori-pottinger/2011-12-22/will-holland-fuel-carbon-credit-dam-scam
There are many other examples.
via Benny Peiser
A NEW cross-party campaign group is to be set up in Westminster to demand the Government drops its support for thousands more wind farms. Backbench MPs from all parties will brand heavily subsidised onshore wind farms inefficient, expensive and a major blight on the landscape. They will urge Ministers to re-think a policy which will add £280 to the annual energy bill of hard-pressed homeowners by 2020. –Kirsty Buchanan, Sunday Express, 22 January 2012
CONSUMER champion Ann Robinson is calling for a rethink on energy policy so that the Government does not invest in costly forms of generation at the expense of cheaper ones. –Tracey Boles, Utility News, 23 January 2012
Unlike the trillions of the national debt, of which no one knows how they will ever be repaid, the idiots have already been determined who will have to pay [100 billion Euros] for the “sun world”: Us electricity customers. It is one of the secrets of the conservative parties, which now and again still use the word “market economy”, why they are so silent about the subsidies for solar power. And it is one of the secrets of the Left, why they don’t rally against this exploitation of vulnerable people in favour of house and land owners. –Gunter Ederer, Fuldaer Zeitung, 21 January 2012
Environmentalism’s main appeal is that it promises to slow the progress of industrial progress. People who are already comfortable with the present state of affairs are happy to go along with this. –William Tucker, The American Spectator, 20 January 2012
Keith,
Still here and very interested if you have some answers for that comparison question. If the answers are too much to post here, Jen has my email address.
I suspect Tony would also have some input?
Cost benefit in tune with social and environmental responsibilty would seem to me to be a more sensible approach?
If these very expensive and heavily subsidised projects cannot deliver reliable base load power (which we all rely so heavily on) what on earth are we doing?
The notion that we can’t do anything progressive because we might impact the environment is crazy. Of course we impact the environment. That’s actually perfectly natural human and mamalian behaviour. Very often, those impacts actually deliver long term social and environmental benefits and enhancements.
Moving hell bent into technology that is clearly not ready to perform adequately is a good idea because??????
A few bon mots on the subject from Maurice Newman, late boss of the ABC:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/newman_blasts_windfarms_like_his_former_staff_wont/
There’s a wonderful new piece at a U.S. based wind site, National Wind Watch.
This is a commentary from Maurice Newman, the former chairman of the ABC.
He expresses some hard truths.
Will a commentary like this appear at the ABC site.
Huh! Don’t bet on it.
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/01/20/against-the-wind-the-pursuit-of-clean-energy-has-relegated-ordinary-people-to-the-status-of-collateral-damage/
Tony.
Hi Debbie. After penning a reply which even I realised may have fallen into what one young man once told me after I pointed him to another post of mine elsewhere to explain my position, TLDNR (too long did not read). When looking again at the questions you asked in your thoughtful and sensible post, I thought it better to first direct you to a resource site recommended to me by TonyfromOz.
I believe it will help provide informed answers far better than anything I could write on matters of wind energy versus any alternatives. If Spangled Drongo is still about, I’d also recommend him to go through it before he attends the BZE presentation in his area on Australia Day.
Scroll down to ‘Articles of General Interest” and the first text block in green. Click ‘online'(Electrical Energy-sound Scientific Solutions).
Do make the presentation full screen and go through it on your keyboard arrow keys as recommended. It is strongly pro-nuclear (as is James Hansen, the “father” of the AGW hypothesis) but that does not alter the facts on wind energy. The presentation is by a physicist, Dr.John Droz.
http://windpowerfacts.info/
Thank you for your continued interest and enquiring mind.
KeithH