Wind energy myths spun by lobbyists and salesmen

wind farmA recent letter in my local paper by American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) representative Tom Vinson is typical of wind industry sales propaganda. It deserves correction. 

This is the reality:  Industrial wind energy is NET LOSER – economically, environmentally, technically and civilly. Let’s examine how.

Economically. New York State (NYS) has some of the highest electricity rates in the United States – a whopping 53% above the national average. This is due in large part to throwing hundreds of billions of our taxpayer and ratepayer dollars into the wind. High electricity costs drive people and businesses out of the state, and ultimately hurt poor families the most.

A NYS resident using 6,500 kWh of electricity annually will pay about $400 per year more for their electricity than if our electricity prices were at the national average. That’s over $3.2 BILLION dollars annually that will not be spent in the rest of the state economy.

Why destroy entire towns, when just one single 450-MW gas-fired combined-cycle generating unit located near New York City (NYC) – where the power is needed – operating at only 60% of its capacity, would provide more electricity than all of NYS’s wind factories combined. 

Furthermore, that one 450 MW gas-fired unit would only require about one-fourth of the capital costs – and would not bring all the negative civil, economic, environmental, human health and property value impacts that are caused by the sprawling industrial wind factories. Nor would it require all the additional transmission lines to NYC.

The Institute for Energy Research tallied the numbers and found that each wind job costs $11.45 million and costs more than four jobs that are lost elsewhere in the economy, because of all the subsidies and the resulting “skyrocketing” cost of electricity. In fact, on a unit of production basis, wind is subsidized over 52 times more than conventional fossil fuels.

In the United Kingdom, David Cameron has finally awakened to the folly of wasting billions on the failed technology of wind. He recently declared, “We will scrap funds for wind farms.”

Environmentally. According to the AWEA, the USA has some 45,100 Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs). Remotely sited IWTs are located far from urban centers where the power is needed. This requires a spider web of new transmission lines (at ratepayers’ expense), which exponentially adds to the needless bird and bat deaths caused by IWTs themselves.

Additionally, sprawling industrial wind factories cause massive habitat fragmentation, which is cited as one of the main reasons for species decline worldwide.

Studies show MILLIONS of birds and bats are being slaughtered annually by these giant “Cuisinarts of the sky,” as a Sierra official dubbed IWTs in a rare moment of candor.

Governor Cuomo’s environmental hypocrisy is also worth noting. Cuomo is supporting “dimming the lights” in New York City to help stop migrating birds from becoming disoriented and crashing into buildings. Yet simultaneously, Cuomo is pushing for many more giant bird-chopping wind turbines – with 600-foot-high blinking red lights, along the shores of Lake Ontario (a major migratory bird flyway), and across rural New York State.  

Technically. Because wind provides NO capacity value, or firm capacity (specified amounts of power on demand), wind requires constant “shadow capacity” from our reliable, dispatchable baseload generators to cover for wind’s inherent volatile, skittering flux on the grid.  Therefore, wind cannot replace those conventional generation sources.  Instead, wind locks us into dependence on fossil fuels – and represents a redundancy (two duplicate sources of electricity), which Big Wind CEO Patrick Jenevein admitted “turns ratepayers and taxpayers into double-payers for the same product.”

The list of accidents, blade failures (throwing debris over a half mile), fires (ten times more than the wind industry previously admitted) and other problems is updated quarterly at a website in the UK. This lengthy and growing list is evidence of why giant, moving machines do NOT belong anywhere near where people live. 

Even the AWEA admits that the life of a typical wind turbine is only 10 to13 years (January 2006: North American Wind Power). This is substantiated by studies on these short-lived lemons.

Adding insult to injury, the actual output of all of New York State’s wind factories combined has been averaging a pathetic 23 percent.  If IWTs were cars, they would have been correctly dubbed ‘lemons’ and relegated to the junkyard a long time ago. 

Civilly. The only thing that has ever been reliably generated by industrial wind is complete and utter civil discord. Neighbor is pitted against neighbor, and even family member against family member. Sprawling industrial wind factories have totally divided communities, which is already apparent in towns across NYS and the country.  It is the job of good government to foresee and prevent this kind of civil discord – not to promote it. 

Regarding human health, NYS officials admitted at a 2009 NYSERDA meeting on wind that they knew “infrasound” from wind turbines was a problem worldwide. The growing list of problems globally highlights that these problems are only getting worse.

At the NYSERDA meeting, a former noise control engineer for the New York State Public Service Commission, Dr. Dan Driscoll, testified that ‘infrasound’ (sounds below 20 Hz) are sounds you can’t hear, but the body can feel.

Dr. Driscoll said that ‘infrasound’ is NOT blocked by walls, and it can very negatively affect the human body – especially after prolonged, continuous exposure.  He said symptoms include headache, nausea, sleeplessness, dizziness, ringing in the ears and other maladies. 

NYS Department of Health official Dr. Jan Storm testified that, despite knowing the global nature of the “infrasound” problem, NYS still had not done any health studies (despite having federal money available to do so). Here we are six years later, and indefensibly, NYS officials still have not called for any independent studies to assure the protection of New York State citizens.

“The Golden Rule,” as espoused by Rotary International’s excellent ‘Four-Way Test’ of the things we think, say and do, should be the moral and ethical standard our public servants aspire to uphold.  The test asks:

  1. Is it the truth?
  2. Is it fair to all concerned?
  3. Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
  4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

When applied to the industrial wind issue, the answers are a resounding, “NO!”

__________________

Mary Kay Barton is a retired health educator, Cornell-certified Master Gardener, and is a tireless advocate for scientifically sound, affordable, and reliable electricity for all Americans. She has served over the past decade in local Water Quality organizations and enjoys gardening and birding in her National Wildlife Federation “Backyard Wildlife Habitat.”

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (71)

  • Avatar

    Will Scribe

    |

    “With every turn of their blade another subsidy paid,
    A disguised redistribution of wealth;
    The poor pay higher amounts to fund “green” bank accounts,
    Enrichment through environmental stealth……”

    Read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-ID

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Ramspace

    |

    Could someone post a more complete reference for that “10 to 13 year life span” (North American Wind Power, 2006) comment? I’ve been looking for such figures for some time, and it’s surprisingly difficult to find a clear answer to such a fundamental question.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Drewski

    |

    From the article above: “This is due in large part to throwing hundreds of billions of our taxpayer and ratepayer dollars into the wind.”

    http://www.windenergyfoundation.org/interesting-wind-energy-facts
    “#24. . . . Wind power comprised 43% of all new U.S. electric capacity additions in 2012 and represented $25 billion in new investment. Wind power currently contributes more than 12% of total electricity generation in nine states (with three of these states above 20%), and provides more than 4% of total U.S. electricity supply. Source: 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report (PDF 3.4 MB)”

    Note that was $25 billion of investment into wind power for the ENTIRE United States in 2012. So how does this author get the idea that New York state has, by itself, wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on wind power? And why are there so many dishonest authors, just like this one, given a voice on this website?

    There is gullible and then there are sCeptics.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Mary Kay Barton

      |

      When you factor in all the new transmission lines that also need to be built from remote rural regions where wind factories are installed to the urban centers where the power is needed; the cost of building equivalent back-up generation to cover for wind’s inherent volatility; the lost property values and tourism revenue of entire towns that are turned into sprawling industrial wind factories; the cost of attorneys for all the lawsuits; the irreparable damages to the environment via the massive habitat fragmentation caused by sprawling, inefficient, unreliable industrial wind factories — the fact is, the real costs of the wind mess are incalculable.

      The Failure of Green Energy Policies – $1.7+ Trillion Spent, Zero CO2 Abated:

      http://euanmearns.com/the-failure-of-green-energy-policies/

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Drewski

        |

        Costs of attorneys?
        Massive habitat fragmentation?
        Unreliable and inefficient?
        The real costs of the wind mess are incalculable?

        Oh the stupid things that sCeptics say.

        BTW, speaking of irreparable damages: According to the American Lung Association, coal power pollution kills 200,000 Americans every year.

        Allow me to inject a few facts into your reading material, again from the Wind Technologies Market Report.

        #1. The United States currently has 61,110 MW of installed wind project capacity, comprising 5.7% of total U.S. installed electric generating capacity.

        #3. Wind power is currently the fastest-growing source of electricity production in the world.

        #4. Iowa and South Dakota generated more than 25% of their energy from wind during 2013.

        #5. A single wind turbine can power 500 homes.

        #8. There’s enough on-shore wind in America to power the country 10 times over.

        #9. In 2013, 12 states accounted for 80% of U.S. wind-generated electricity: Texas, Iowa, California, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Oregon, Colorado, Washington, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration March Electric Power Monthly report.

        #10. Most wind turbines (95%) are installed on private land.

        #11. Modern wind turbines produce 15 times more electricity than the typical turbine did in 1990.

        #12. At times, wind energy produces as much as 25% of the electricity on the Texas power grid.

        #13. American wind power is a $10 billion a year industry.

        #14. Unlike nearly every other form of energy, wind power uses virtually no water.

        #15. By 2030, U.S. wind power will save nearly 30 trillion bottles of water.

        #16. At times, wind power produces as much as 45% of the electricity in Spain.

        #17. Wind energy became the number-one source of new U.S. electricity-generating capacity for the first time in 2012, providing some 42% of all new generating capacity. In fact, 2012 was a strong year for all renewables, as together they accounted for more than 55% of all new U.S. generating capacity.

        #18. During 2013, California led the nation in new wind installations (with 269 megawatts), followed by Kansas, Michigan, Texas, and New York.

        #19. 70% of all U.S. Congressional Districts are home to an operating wind project, a wind-related manufacturing facility, or both.

        #20. As of May 2014, the United States is home to 46,000 operating wind turbines.

        #21. Right now, 559 wind-related manufacturing facilities produce a product for the U.S. wind energy industry across 44 states.

        #23. In 2000, more than 60% of U.S. wind power capacity was installed in California, with 17 states hosting utility-scale wind turbines. Today, 39 states and Puerto Rico share 60 gigawatts of utility-scale wind project development.

        #24. Wind is a credible source of new electricity generation in the United States. Wind power comprised 43% of all new U.S. electric capacity additions in 2012 and represented $25 billion in new investment. Wind power currently contributes more than 12% of total electricity generation in nine states (with three of these states above 20%), and provides more than 4% of total U.S. electricity supply. Source: 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report (PDF 3.4 MB)

        #25. Wind energy prices have dropped since 2009 and now rival previous lows. Lower wind turbine prices and installed project costs, along with improved capacity factors, are enabling aggressive wind power pricing. After topping out at nearly $70/megawatt-hour in 2009, the average levelized long-term price from wind power sales agreements signed in 2011/2012 – many of which were for projects built in 2012 – fell to around $40/megawatt-hour nationwide.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          More lack of comprehension and endless blather

          Nobody expected you to understand,
          andrzejewski

          Reply

          • Avatar

            DrewskiI

            |

            Yes Jaypeeing.
            “Blather” is the sCeptic definition of information that comes from a reputable source.

            Just like “liar” means always correct and just as an unqualified author means “sCeptic expert”.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            You’re a serial proven liar and no-mind. You’re fooling nobody. You can crawl back in your hole or continue your version of slapstick idiocy.

            If I pay attention, it will be by laughing. I believe I have a lot of company.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Hey Serial drewLIEski!

            Remember the time you tried to lift a quote from a FAKE paper and insert it into another, then claim you had “proven me wrong”?
            [quote]# amirlach 2014-05-05 01:07

            Quote:

            Take this Millar et al 2006, Naurzbaev et al 2004 study you thrust upon me 3 times above with such indignation and self-rightousness;

            Did you happen to see this quote about Tree Rings from that very same study?:
            “Measurements of tree ring parameters from regions where temperature limits tree growth can be used to reconstruct surface temperature. THESE SHOW THAT THE 2OTH CENTURY WARMING IS UNUSUAL since at least 1500.”: http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/atmo629/Surf_Temp_Reconstruction_Report/Tree%20Rings.pdf

            My God, you are such a tool.

            And you are such a liar. The “study” you linked to is not the one i’m talking about.

            climateaudit.org/2006/03/14/millar-et-al-the-sierra-nevada-mwp/ No where does it say “THESE SHOW THAT THE 2OTH CENTURY WARMING IS UNUSUAL since at least 1500”.Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator[/quote]

            What a Tool indeed.

            http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/oh-won-t-you-stay-ay-ay-just-a-little-bit-longer.html#comments

          • Avatar

            DrewskiI

            |

            This paper:
            http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/atmo629/Surf_Temp_Reconstruction_Report/Tree%20Rings.pdf

            With the same person, Millar, as a co-author is a FAKE paper?!?

            And choosing an accurate quote from that paper makes me a serial liar?

            And nothing to comment on about the real issue here — the constant flood of actual lies that comes across the site told by people with fake names, fake titles, fake qualifications and, mostly, by people with NO scientific qualifications.

            I think you have been sucking in too much of that healthy benzene.

          • Avatar

            Mary Kay Barton

            |

            “Just sayin’ “Drewski,” but don’t you think it’s rather ironic that a person hiding behind a fake name is calling out people for using “fake names, fake titles, fake qualifications, and no scientific qualifications”???

            By the way, my degree is in Health Science, and I’m all for scientifically sound energy policies – which industrial wind fails miserably.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Yep and the Coolwhp Cowboy rides again, off in shame like usual, and then comes back for more! 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            You cannot reason with him, he simply lies then runs away.

            Of course anyone who questions his Cult Carbonian’s and their fake data, fake models, fake reconstructions, failed predictions and un scientific methods must be unqualified.

            Alarmists have never produced a model that has been validated. Never made a single skillful prediction.

            The Met paper, “Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?”, by J Knight and others, had this to say:

            Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals

            of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

            TRANSLATION – A standstill of 15 years or more invalidates the models.

            It has been over 19 years. Met Office Confirm Their Climate Models Are Invalidated!

            A Paper Published by one of those guy’s with “fake titles, fake qualifications and NO scientific qualifications”.
            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/19_years_pause.png[/img]

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/01/new-paper-on-the-pause-says-it-is-19-years-at-surface-and-16-26-years-at-the-lower-troposphere/

            Settled science? 😀

            Invalidated Hypothesis, UN scientific method, fake models, fake papers, appeals to authority and out and out lies. drewski’s modus operandi ad nauseum…

          • Avatar

            DrewskiI

            |

            Yes yes One Trick,
            Back with the graphs I see. like Linus with his blanket. And you are back with the extraordinarily dishonest trick of starting your graph during the largest temperature anomaly of the past century. Doesn’t that constitute a serial lie?

            Just to reinforce what I have been saying for years about this supposed climate science site. The first 25 articles currently on this site (and probably the next 100 after) were written by people with no scientific qualifications whatsoever with the possible exception of Dr Benny Peiser — A SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGIST.

            Idiots following idiots.

            And still no comment I see about the blatant lie told by the author of the article above. Are sCeptic lies only lies when they are the truth?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            No proof acclaimed attorney
            ON – GE – ESS – KEE
            getting into irrelevant blather to keep the conversation going as if he had anything to say

            keep talking
            when I bother to check in
            I’ll file it appropriately

          • Avatar

            DrewskiI

            |

            File it under “Beyond my comprehension” like you do with anything factual or scientific.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            The gall to even say fact or science. Keep talking. You reveal yourself with every word.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            “The gall to even say fact or science”
            Says the man who is a faithful follower of site which has a phobia about carrying stories from actual scientists or scientific organizations but regularly carries error-filled tripe from authors like Mary Kay Barton.

            I will say it again: Idiots following idiots.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Keep talking
            Nothing to say
            Revealing what you are

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            “Revealing what you are”
            Certainly more scientifically informed than the “experts” you perpetually parade across this site.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]And choosing an accurate quote from that paper makes me a serial liar?[/quote] Not the same Paper, not the same author. So YES!

            In fact please show me where the author’s name appears in that fake “draft”.

            You made the false claim that the Millar 2006 paper said this “Measurements of tree ring parameters from regions where temperature limits tree growth can be used to reconstruct surface temperature. THESE SHOW THAT THE 2OTH CENTURY WARMING IS UNUSUAL since at least 1500.”

            When it clearly did not. You LIED!

            Here is what it actually said.
            [quote]Using contemporary distributions of the species, we modeled paleoclimate during the time of sympatry [the MWP] to be significantly warmer (+3.2 deg C annual minimum temperature) and slightly drier (-24 mm annual precipitation) than present,[/quote]

            The real paper found the exact opposite of the fake one you lied about.

            You were lying then and your lying now. Makes this Pure Projection Pure Comedy Gold.
            [quote]And nothing to comment on about the real issue here — the constant flood of actual lies that comes across the site told by people with fake names, fake titles, fake qualifications and, mostly, by people with NO scientific qualifications.[/quote]

            Like Big Ghey Al the sex poodle or Picha-choo the serial sex offender??… Or all those REAL cLIEmate UNscientist’s who have yet to make a single skillful model prediction after wasting countless billions? When tested against reality they fail every time.

            According to the Scientific Method, when it disagrees with experiment it’s WRONG!

            Nowhere in the Scientific Method does it state one should “adjust” the data to fit the invalidated hypothesis. Yet time and again Co2 Socialists are caught doing just that.

        • Avatar

          Mary Kay Barton

          |

          “Drewski”, you are obviously a wind salesperson. Labeling me a “sCeptic” (whatever that is supposed to mean?), is typical of wind proponents who resort to personal attacks to try to make their case. It is beyond juvenile.

          Wind power may be “the fastest growing,” but that is simply because the of the regulations being imposed by the Obama administration’s out-of-control EPA, which is not allowing much else to be built in this country these days.

          You apparently have no understanding of physics, and that the diffuse energy of wind provides only 1watt per square meter since wind energy is based on the cube of the wind speed – necessitating massive industrial sprawl for thousands of miles to build wind factories. Manhattan Institute scholar, Robert Bryce, has described this time and time again in his writings on wind, including this recent article: The Environmentalists’ Civil War, in which he writes:

          “The power density of wind energy is 1 watt per square meter. Therefore, the land area needed to produce that much renewable electricity would total about 31 billion square meters or 31,000 square kilometers, which is about 12,000 square miles. Put another way, just to meet electricity demand in Massachusetts with wind energy would require an area larger than the state itself, which, including water area, covers about 27,000 square kilometers, or 10,500 square miles…”

          Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417070/environmentalists-civil-war-robert-bryce

          Ornithologist, Jon Boone, explains the problems with wind extremely well in his good article, Oxymoronic Windpower:

          Oxymoronic Windpower (Part I: Howlers):
          http://www.masterresource.org/2011/01/wind-howlers-part-i/

          Oxymoronic Windpower (Part II: Windspeak):

          http://www.masterresource.org/2011/01/windspeak-part-ii/

          And from this good article on energy density from William Tucker – Understanding E = mc2:

          “The release of energy from splitting a uranium atom turns out to be 2 million times greater than breaking the carbon-hydrogen bond in coal, oil or wood. Compared to all the forms of energy ever employed by humanity, nuclear power is off the scale. Wind has less than 1/10th the energy density of wood, wood half the density of coal and coal half the density of octane. Altogether they differ by a factor of about 50. Nuclear has 2 million times the energy density of gasoline. It is hard to fathom this in light of our previous experience. Yet our energy future largely depends on grasping the significance of this differential.”

          See more at: http://www.energytribune.com/2771/understanding-e-mc2#sthash.onSjcSG8.dpuf

          You fail to include other facts coming out of countries like Spain & Germany, who dove into blighting their countrysides with antiquated wind lemons.

          A Spanish study by researcher Gabriel Alvarez at King Carlos University in Madrid concluded that Spain’s mad rush to meet overly aggressive renewable standards has destroyed jobs. For every job created in the wind industry, 2 – 4 jobs are lost in the rest of the economy. Even worse is the fact that only one in 10 of those wind energy jobs was permanent. See:
          http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/uploads/Calzada-Spain-jobs-renewables.pdf , and
          http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/uploads/Calzada-Spain-renewables-boom-bust.ppt

          The end result in Spain: Investing in wind has driven up Spain’s real cost of electricity, while carbon emissions have increased 50% since 2000 according to data from the European Environment Agency. The unemployment rate in Spain is over 26%, and 50% in those under 30 years old.

          In Germany, industry is leaving due to “skyrocketing” electricity rates due to their mad rush for ‘renewables’ – ie: wind. Germany is building new coal plants to cover for the unreliability of wind they have inflicted upon themselves, and over 800,000 people have had their power shut off due to being thrust into energy poverty (their power bills now cost over 10% of their monthly income) thanks to the “skyrocketing electricity costs they have created as a result of their mad pursuit of renewables.

          Angela Merkel’s Vice Chancellor Stuns, Declares Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ To Be On ‘The Verge Of Failure’!
          http://notrickszone.com/2014/04/27/angela-merkels-vice-chancellor-stuns-declares-germanys-energiewende-to-be-on-the-verge-of-failure/#sthash.ihlNWVJs.dpbs

          The German electricity crisis – twice the price, but everyone’s going broke:
          http://joannenova.com.au/2015/04/thethe-german-electricity-crisis-twice-the-price-but-everyones-going-broke/

          By the way, according to the EIA, total national electric generation from wind is 4.4%:

          http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

          Reply

          • Avatar

            DrewskiI

            |

            No Mary Kay,
            I am not a salesperson, I am an anti-stupidy person.

            Take this statement of yours for example: ‘Wind power may be “the fastest growing,” but that is simply because the of the regulations being imposed by the Obama administration’s out-of-control EPA,”

            This statement is stupid for 3 reasons.
            1) Wind is fastest growing WORLDWIDE.
            2) Wind is the CHEAPEST form of new energy generation (new as in newly commissioned)
            3) It doesn’t require significant amounts of water (or external fuel, for that matter).

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            So your anti-Drewski then! 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [img]

            “On pure emissions alone, the key points are:

            • China emits more CO2 than the US and Canada put together – up by 171% since the year 2000
            • The US has had declining CO2 for two years running, the last time the US had declining CO2 for 3 years running was in the 1980s
            • The UK is down one place to tenth on the list, 8% on the year. The country is now behind Iran, South Korea, Japan and Germany
            • India is now the world’s third biggest emitter of CO2 – pushing Russia into fourth place
            • The biggest decrease from 2008-2009 is Ukraine – down 28%. The biggest increase is the Cook Islands – up 66.7%”

            http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#img-1%5B/img%5D

            http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2

            If wind is so great, it will live or die according to market forces.

            Governments that pick winners and losers always pick losers.

          • Avatar

            Mary Kay Barton

            |

            Clearly “Drewski,” you’ve been drinking the ‘green’ Kool-Aid.

            FYI: There is approximately 2000 pounds of Rare Earth elements per MW — which means 4000 – 6000 pounds per typical current wind turbine. See:

            In China, the True Cost of clean, ‘green’ Wind Experiment – Pollution on a Disastrous Scale:

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

            Since wind provides virtually NO Capacity Value, or firm capacity (specified amounts of power on demand), wind must have equivalent reliable generation standing by at all times to cover for wind’s volatile skittering flux on the grid. This is exactly why Big Wind CEO, Patrick Jenevein candidly admitted in his WSJ op-ed, and follow-up TV interview, that “Consumers end up being double-payers for the same product.” Obviously, there is nothing “cheap” when consumers are getting charged twice for a redundant product.

            Also “Drewski,” just because you deny the environmental degradation, habitat loss, and massive bird and bat death tolls caused by the sprawling footprints of these giant boondoggles – or the costs they have on the communities and peoples’ lives they are inflicted upon – does not mean that it doesn’t exist.

          • Avatar

            DrewskiI

            |

            “FYI: There is approximately 2000 pounds of Rare Earth elements per MW — which means 4000 – 6000 pounds per typical current wind turbine. See:”

            Sorry Mary Kate,
            Your link says nothing of the kind (I won’t say you “lied” because on this site, the word has a strange counter-intuitive meaning).

            However, I did find this quote from another — scientific — source:”A massive wind turbine—capable of turning the breeze into two million watts of power—has 40-meter-long blades made from fiberglass, towers 90 meters above the ground, weighs hundreds of metric tons, and fundamentally relies on roughly 300 kilograms of a soft, silvery metal known as neodymium—a so-called rare earth.”http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rare-earths-elemental-needs-of-the-clean-energy-economy/

            FYI: That is 150kg of rare earths per MW.

            Interestingly, I did find this actual quote from your link:”There are 17 ‘rare earth metals’ – the name doesn’t mean they are necessarily in short supply; it refers to the fact that the metals occur in scattered deposits of minerals, rather than concentrated ores.”

            PS Mary Kate, You are aware of course that ordinary house windows and powerlines are responsible for thousands of times more deaths than wind turbines? And that modern wind turbines spin more slowly and are more carefully placed to avoid such problems. And, of course, you are also aware that wind power is much friendlier in regards to infant mortality that coal?

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            That’s not suprising, he can’t even spell his own madeup name right now! 😆

          • Avatar

            DrewskiI

            |

            Sorry about the name but not about being right about the calamity of fossil fuels. I am astounded that someone in the Health Science field is so ignorant about the health and safety hazards coal presents to human health.

          • Avatar

            Mary Kay Barton

            |

            Cars, cats and buildings do NOT typically kill Bald & Golden Eagles, condors, whooping cranes, and other raptors — Industrial wind turbines do!

            There are Hundreds of BILLIONS of cars, cats and buildings worldwide. Juxtapose that with the fact that there are only about 250,000 industrial wind turbines worldwide (approximately 45,100 of those are in the USA, according to the American Wind Energy Association – AWEA).

            Furthermore, those Hundreds of Billions of cars and buildings have greatly improved the quality of life for Hundreds of BILLIONS of people worldwide. It can even be said that cats improve our quality of life since they keep disease-carrying rodents under control.

            Industrial wind turbines do exactly the opposite – industrializing and devaluing entire Towns and Counties, and destroying the quality of life for those stuck living TOO CLOSE, while providing – at best – a redundant energy source that can NOT provide reliable, dispatchable baseload power.

            Then there is the massive Habitat Fragmentation that the sprawling footprints of industrial wind factories create. Since habitat loss has been cited as the major cause of species decline worldwide, the additional deaths caused by wind factory-created habitat loss, and all the additional transmission lines that must be added, is inexcusable and the exact opposite result true environmentalists espouse to hold dear.

            The whole fiasco becomes even more disgusting when you consider the fact that the very reason the wind industry exists is because of their claims that wind power will reduce CO2 emissions and thereby, help abate Global Warming. Yet, CO2 emissions have NOT been significantly reduced by industrial wind factories, nor have any conventional power plants been shuttered – anywhere, thanks to wind.

            Industrial wind turbines are simply an additive source of bird and bat deaths – for NO justifiable reason!

            Taxpayers and ratepayers are paying twice for the redundant generation provided by these giant “Cuisinarts of the sky,” as a Sierra Club official dubbed wind turbines in a rare moment of candor.

            The fact that President Obama had to sign a special EAGLE-KILL permit law solely for the wind industry, serves to highlight the absolute hypocrisy of wind salesmen and proponents who claim they wish to “save the environment,” while purposely working to slaughter our national symbol – the Bald Eagle (along with MILLIONS of other birds and bats annually) — in the name of this ‘green’ FRAUD.

          • Avatar

            DrewskiI

            |

            Fossil-fueled facilities are 17-34 times more dangerous to birds on a per GWh basis than wind power. Old style wind turbines may have killed thousands birds, but fossil-fueled stations killed 14.5 million and nuclear 327,000.

            “The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh.”

            http://www.nukefree.org/news/avianmortalityfromwindpower,fossil-fuel,andnuclearelectricity
            Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind power, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity by Benjamin K. Sovacool

            Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore 259772, Singapore

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            How many were ducks?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil-fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to avian wildlife than wind and nuclear power technologies.[/quote] Estimates? By a wind energy promoter? :zzz

            It’s seems like a “preliminary” attempt to refute this Paper.
            Kikuchi, 2008.
            http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222699991_Adverse_impacts_of_wind_power_generation_on_collision_behaviour_of_birds_and_anti-predator_behaviour_of_squirrels

            Maybe it will eventually pass Peer Review.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            http://www.newgeography.com/content/002509-gas-against-wind

            Thankfully the UK has elected a Government that will Frack for gas, time to end the needles deaths of the poor and elderly in the UK who suffer from energy poverty.

            Ironically the very same people who these self loathing leftists pretend to protect.

            drewski still lies about what we use for Frack Fluid. He still thinks we pump benzene into the ground instead of the other way round. His denial of where benzene comes from is quite funny.
            [quote]Benzene is a natural constituent of crude oil, and is one of the most elementary petrochemicals. Benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon and the second [n]-annulene ([6]-annulene), a cyclic hydrocarbon with a continuous pi bond. It is sometimes abbreviated Ph–H. Benzene is a colorless and highly flammable liquid with a sweet smell. It is mainly used as a precursor to heavy chemicals, such as ethylbenzene and cumene, which are produced on a billion kilogram scale…[/quote]

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I agree

            BUT

            In the USA these companies usually get away with stealing the natural resource without any payment to the property owners under whose land they are drilling.

            Shamefully the courts let them get away with it as if property owners who pay hefty property taxes have no right to the resources under their land.

            While opportunist resource stealers are not required to pay any such tax and are allowed to ignore the rights of the property owners.

            This is what is fundamentally wrong about fracking. Because it involves horizontal drilling which can extend for miles with the drilling company under no obligation to pay, inform, get permission from the property owners at any time.

            In other words :

            IT’S STEALING and

            It’s government endorsed !!!!

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Exactly, the Government. and they are there to help. All for one and one for none!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Very few landowners in Canada own the mineral rights anymore. Basically you own the top six inches, nothing more.

            The horizontal sections of the well can be a mile below the surface.

            I have no idea what the law is in the USA regarding mineral rights.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            USA law can very widely ( wildly ? ) over 50 states, but is fairly uniform over many issues.

            Generally, you would hold dominion over everything subterranean all the way to the center of the earth. I doubt any court would enforce it.

            With regard to natural gas being present in ” pocket ” like deposits, adjacent property owners would be entitled to royalties as well as the wellhead owner. It is usually statutory as to the minimum royalty that must be paid to the property owner and the adjacent owners as well !

            But the black and white of the law is rarely followed or enforced. Typically, adjacent owners are ignored and stonewalled. Once a property is sold or inherited, the new owner would usually have to sue before the energy company would comply with what the law clearly demands they pay. And usually the cost of suing one of these giants is far greater than the anticipated royalties. Result : They get away without paying that which they are legally obligated to.

            The best advice that could be given to anyone thinking of signing on with an energy or pipeline company : Get everything you want as an upfront prior to signature signing bonus. Once your signature is on the dotted line, they will do everything in their power to cheat you. And if you don’t hire a lawyer and have him/her review everything prior to signature : YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND.

        • Avatar

          JB

          |

          “BTW, speaking of irreparable damages: According to the American Lung Association, coal power pollution kills 200,000 Americans every year.”
          Maybe it is only American lungs that are susceptible to burning coal fumes. In Australia the largest power station is Eraring located in West Lake Macquarie. That region according to most recent census has the highest percentage of over 85s in the country. Maybe the secret to longevity is to live near a coal burning power station.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            “PREMATURE deaths from air pollution in Lake Macquarie are costing up to $205 million a year, the city council estimates.

            The disclosure comes amid a federal review that aims to improve national standards for air pollutants.”

            “The report said there had been “significant advances in the understanding of the health effects of particulate matter”.

            “They include premature mortality and aggravation of cardiovascular and respiratory disease,” it said.”

            National Pollutant Inventory data shows that Eraring Power Station alone emitted 200,000 kilograms of PM2.5 and 400,000 kilograms of PM10 in 2012-13.

            Lake Macquarie Greens spokeswoman Phillipa Parsons said there was “huge potential for renewable power sources to provide baseload power”.

            “There is no future in coal,” Ms Parsons said.
            http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=BB580E38E6EB5AAA0C5F1F4B911ACDE3?sy=afr&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=603&clsPage=1&docID=NCH140906ABL5C5BUFOJ

          • Avatar

            JB

            |

            That is like quoting Marx to prove Marx. Lake Macquarie City Council is a greens dominated council and the quote from the local paper is mere scaremongering. Neither the producers of that report, nor the local council can explain why people are living longer in the shadow of the coal burning power station. Nor can they explain why Hunter New England Health statistics show fewer and fewer people presenting with respiratory ailments.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            So the Council that benefits most (financially) from having the coal fired plant in their domain is green dominated because they don’t want to pay for imaginary health costs?

            Interesting.

            Well then how about these guys?

            Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) estimated coal’s health impacts cost taxpayers $2.6 billion every year.

            Or what about these guys? The CAHA (Climate and Health Alliance) which has 27 member organizations.

            Their Joint Statement reads:

            “We, the undersigned, accept the clear evidence that:

            1. coal mining and burning coal for electricity emits toxic and carcinogenic substances into our air, water and land;
            2. coal pollution is linked to the development of potentially fatal diseases and studies show severe health impacts on miners, workers and local communities;
            3. Australia’s heavy reliance on coal for electricity generation and massive coal industry expansion present significant risks to the health of communities, families and individuals; and
            4. emissions from coal mine fires, like the recent Hazelwood mine fire in Victoria, and the release of heavy metal and organic compounds, pose health risks for surrounding populations, such as respiratory and heart disease, cancers and other health conditions.

            BTW, JB, regarding your baseless assertion that fewer Hunter New England people are presenting with respiratory ailments, I found an extremely comprehensive and well-reference report about health in that very same region: “Compared to the rest of NSW, one or both of Upper Hunter and Lower Hunter, the geographical regions of HNEAHS that are most affected by open-cut coal mining and power generation activities, have higher rates of:
            — emergency department attendance for asthma and
            respiratory disease
            — hospital admission for all respiratory conditions together
            and for asthma (Upper Hunter Only)

          • Avatar

            JB

            |

            I wasn’t comparing Hunter Health Stats with the rest of Australia. I will repeat “Hunter New England Health statistics show fewer and fewer people presenting with respiratory ailments.” In fact those few that do present we find their respiratory problems are due to cigarette smoking and not mining. You still haven’t explained why West lake Macquarie has a high percentage of over 85’s. The air cannot be that bad.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            JB,
            Lake Macquarie happens to be beautiful, has great weather and plenty of retirement homes — like Florida. Are you saying that all these 85-year-olds have lived in the region for their entire life? Love to see those demographics.
            And while you are at it, can you post a link regarding falling respiratory stats?

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Never mind JB,
            I did my own research:
            “Greater Port Macquarie is a bustling coastal region 4.5 hours drive from Sydney in northern New South Wales. Its population grows by five people a day, mostly retirees. Its appeal lies in the sub-tropical climate and diverse geography, ranging from sandy beaches, coastal wetlands and heritage listed rainforests.

            Lake Macquarie / The Hunter

            A very popular destination for retirees due to its laidback lifestyle close to Sydney, with more than 35,000 residents aged over 60.

            However, i still can’t find that information on falling respiratory rates you say exists. Were you fibbing? Better not tell JayPee.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            It’s nice that so many people over the age of 60 can afford not only to retire by the sea, but also afford a laid back lifestyle as you put it.

            Contrast that to the over 30 thousand UK poor and elderly who died from having to decide between heating their homes and eating.

            Thanks Coal!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Premature Deaths from Energy Poverty are over 30 thousand a year in the UK.
            [quote]The social cost of fuel poverty is massive, and growing. In the winter of 2012/13, there were 31,000 extra winter deaths in England and Wales, a rise of 29% on the previous year. Around 30-50% of these deaths can be linked to being cold indoors. And not being able to heat your home also takes a huge toll on health in general: those in fuel poverty have higher incidences of asthma, bronchitis, heart and lung disease, kidney disease and mental health problems.[/quote]

            As JB pointed out, Coal Power has increased life expectancy over the “alternative”, IE: Freezing in the Dark. It is also the main power source that is lifting Billions out of short brutish lives caused by crushing fuel poverty.

            India and China are going full steam ahead with Coal.

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
          1.Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
          2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
          3.Solyndra ($535 million)*
          4.Beacon Power ($43 million)*
          5.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
          6.SunPower ($1.2 billion)
          7.First Solar ($1.46 billion)
          8.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
          9.EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
          10.Amonix ($5.9 million)
          11.Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
          12.Abound Solar ($400 million)*
          13.A123 Systems ($279 million)*
          14.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
          15.Johnson Controls ($299 million)
          16.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
          17.ECOtality ($126.2 million)
          18.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
          19.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
          20.Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
          21.Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
          22.Range Fuels ($80 million)*
          23.Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
          24.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
          25.Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
          26.GreenVolts ($500,000)
          27.Vestas ($50 million)
          28.LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
          29.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
          30.Navistar ($39 million)
          31.Satcon ($3 million)*
          32.Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
          33.Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

          *Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

          GO GREENS!!!… 😀

          Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Mind-boggling news:

        the UK backs up its windfarms with diesel generators!

        The electricity produced this way will cost 12 times the market price, because the generators will only be required to produce energy when there is not enough wind. It is thus necessary to pay investors generously so that they may amortise their investment. One of them is an ex-governor of Oklahoma now investing in this juicy, UK government-guaranteed business. The whole thing stinks.

        http://www.epaw.org/echoes.php?lang=en&article=n124

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Me

          |

          Like Spain did with Light All’s at their solar project.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Drewski assume you are right $25 Billion(capital investment ) in 2012.

    The cost of higher feed in tariffs and other indirect costs including subsidies over the life of the projects are what the author seems to be expressing and not just the capital investment for a given year .

    The author doesn’t sound like she is the type of person to be chirping for big oil but she makes a number of good points even if she hasn’t provided a detailed spread sheet of her estimates . Most authors don’t either .

    She put forward her perspective and despite whether there are things to dispute I like the fact she considered the environment and the economy .

    She has also done a fair bit of community service on environmental
    issues .Some of that balance is not always present with the rest of us these days .

    Yes, it seems her number of “billions” are not well described but there is far more to her article than that .

    She doesn’t strike me as a dishonest person more likely one that just cares a lot .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Mary Kay Barton

      |

      Thank you, Amber – you are correct about that. I care very much that wind proponents are destroying the very environment they claim they wish to save, and destroying peoples’ lives and communities in the process – all for the antiquated technology of wind. The diffuse energy of wind can never supply modern, dispatchable baseload power.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Mary Kay Barton

      |

      For your further consideration — I can testify to the realities that have occurred here in Wyoming County in western New York State, thanks to the 308 industrial wind turbines now strewn throughout five entire townships on the west side of the Warsaw Valley. (We have much higher population densities here than there is on the largely unpopulated Great Plains, Iowa, Texas, etc) Destroying the once-peaceful community relations and once-scenic vistas we used to enjoy throughout our county — for the few recycled taxpayer dollars that anyone may receive for pimping themselves out to Big Wind — is definitely NOT worth the results we have experienced here!

      While the 5 towns that participated may not have to pay any town tax for the life of the project or until the Big Wind LLCs disappear without a trace (when the subsidies get pulled) – saving a measly couple hundred bucks a year is NOT worth what we all got as a result:

      1.) Wyoming County taxes have gone up every year over the past 12 years (concurrent with the proliferation of wind factories in the County), up another 9.68% this year;

      2.) The Town of Eagle, which has a wind project, was reassessed to what they were told was 100% just last year, but had their assessments jacked up another 40% again this year. If anything, these peoples’ assessments should be being lowered, as the whole area has been devalued – just ask any realtor worth his oats — Location, Location, Location!

      3.) Few – if any, meaningful permanent jobs were created here (maybe a few dead bird and bat picker-uppers);

      4.) Wind factories are NOT paying their fair share of taxes, but instead “shift the burden of taxation on to local residents and small businesses.” (See: Local Wind Subsidies: New York State’s Money-Road to Nowhere:
      http://www.masterresource.org/2012/08/local-wind-subsidies-more-waste-new-york-states-money-road-to-nowhere/)

      5.) Community relations have been ruined – people that used to be friends now hate one another, even families have been divided;

      6.) Nobody is getting “free” or reduced rate electricity – in fact, New York State electricity rates continue to “skyrocket” due to throwing boatloads of taxpayer & ratepayer money into the wind. NYS has some of the highest electricity rates in the nation, in large part due to futilely chasing the wind;

      7.) Wind can NOT replace reliable, dispatchable, baseload generation sources – that is, if you expect the lights to come on when you flick the switch;

      8.) Habitat Fragmentation associated with the miles & miles of industrial sprawl and access roads associated with sprawling wind factories, has forever destroyed “the sense of place” (some of Albany’s latest buzzwords) Wyoming County was famous for, and is cited as one of the main reasons for species decline worldwide;

      9.) Negative impacts from infrasound and resonant ground vibrations caused by these giant signs of ignorance & greed are REAL. The long-term mental & physical stress this places on those living TOO CLOSE may not be immediately evident, but will surface over time, after prolonged exposure and increased loss of proper sleep.

      10.) Lawsuits persist.

      11.) County residents got stuck paying over $100,000 for a new Emergency Communications tower after the one we had wouldn’t work adequately anymore after Invenergy’s Orangeville project went up and it wasn’t in Invenergy’s contract to cover it (Invenergy’s owner, Michael Polski, held a $35,000 a plate fundraiser for Obama at his mansion in Chicago after the PTC was extended again at the end of 2012, which was why Invenergy built the 58-turbine Orangeville project.)

      12.) Some people are driven more crazy by the strobe effect created when the sun is behind the turbines, and/or the blinking red lights at night, than anything. The night sky now looks like a cheap blinking Christmas tree spread out for miles.

      13.) The population of Wyoming County has decreased by 2.2% since 2010. Many people are leaving because of the wind mess.

      The fact that Governor Cuomo continues to allow this scam to be perpetrated on Upstate and western NY citizens without ever calling for independent health studies is absolutely inexcusable. Officials are throwing their residents under the bus for a few bucks for the biggest energy scam to ever come down the pike, while ignoring the problems associated with ‘infrasound’ reported worldwide, and while ignoring the bigger picture that there is NO net benefit to destroying the environment they claim they wish to save, while adding to the burdensome debt that is being piled onto our children & grandchildren’s shoulders – to which wind is substantial contributor.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        din365

        |

        and we haven’t even gotten to the contamination from toxic chemicals needed to mine the metals needed to build and maintain the gearboxes of these things, and whatever stuff that happens during the refining process,too.
        http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/problems/refining.html
        this seems to be the monkey on the green’s back that’s actually more like a 400 pound gorilla after the claims.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Drewski

        |

        Hey Mary Kay,
        You may want to do an update regarding coal vs wind:
        “As Duke Energy pleaded guilty Thursday in a North Carolina courtroom to nine criminal violations of the federal Clean Water Act, federal prosecutors recounted examples where time and again the nation’s largest electricity company failed to prevent its illegal pollution.”

        Still sticking with wind as the big killer?

        I wonder if we see an article about this on CBD? Perhaps, if it was an honest publication.

        What do you guys thinK?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Mary Kay Barton

          |

          Again, your lack of reading comprehension is showing. This article is about the failed ‘green’ boondoggle of industrial wind – not coal.

          http://www.WiseEnergy.org

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            You are priceless Mary Kay,
            Now you want to convince us that rare earth mining is a bigger health hazard than coal pollution — and in China of all places!!!

            Coal pollution is estimated to kill well over 1 million Chinese each year, the air quality is so bad that you often can’t even see across rivers, face masks are ubiquitous in the big cities and they are now even selling cans of air — no joke — because it is that precious to get a breath of clean air.

            Now, I agree that bad mining practices like those in Mongolia or even the unscrupulous frakking practices going on in North America are not healthy, but to try and compare the problem to coal pollution is ludicrous.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Eight time proven liar

            On – GEE – EZZ – KEE

            with slurs and insults and just plain lies directed at Ms. Barton

            when he isn’t even qualified to lick her shoes.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Yeah yeah Jaypeeing,
            Facts are lies and coal is healthy in China.

            I got it.

            PS When do you think CCD is going to get around to posting a story on that disgraceful and criminal activity regarding Duke Energy?

            Enjoy the El Nino.

            This is Drewski signing off.

            Hi ho Silver — away!!!

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            How about when all the bullshit stops with the AGW and green energy crap that went under. Think about that! And not that any criminal activity needs to be protected, but it needs to be stop.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            You are an eight time proven liar. You can pretend credibility all you want. You are still a liar. There is nothing you have ever said on this website that can be scientifically proven. You have a masochistic tendency to want to be mentally beaten up. Keep coming back. I, for one will gladly accommodate you.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            And that too, but I stoped counting after he did it once. Aks him about the time he tried to pretend to be Gator, and I caught him on it! 😆

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I think I missed that. It makes him a nine time proven liar.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            And remember
            andrzjeweski

            you’ll never be qualified to lick her shoes.

          • Avatar

            Mary Kay Barton

            |

            What’s “ludicrous” is comparing the diffuse energy of wind – which has NO firm capacity, to any of our reliable, dispatchable baseload power sources. It’s like comparing a glider to Boeing 747.

            http://www.windtoons.com/images/l24Wind-farm-promoter-Game-Over.gif

            As cited previously:

            “The power density of wind energy is 1 watt per square meter. Therefore, the land area needed to produce that much renewable electricity would total about 31 billion square meters or 31,000 square kilometers, which is about 12,000 square miles. Put another way, just to meet electricity demand in Massachusetts with wind energy would require an area larger than the state itself, which, including water area, covers about 27,000 square kilometers, or 10,500 square miles…”

            And even then, you aren’t going to have any power at all when the wind isn’t blowing, is blowing too hard, or isn’t blowing hard enough.

            Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417070/environmentalists-civil-war-robert-bryce

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.