Wind turbine reality

From the blog “greeniewatch”    (http://antigreen.blogspot.com)

1,000 words

This is an iron mine. Steel is made of iron, and wind turbines are predominantly made of steel. So when the anti-uranium brigade bemoans the incurable dangers of mining and then bows to wind turbines, they’re not being straight with you. Mining isn’t pretty but thanks to modern technology and smart engineers, it’s perfectly safe and absolutely necessary.

Wind and no power?

For the first time in three days, the turbines are turning.  This is not due to lack of wind–it has been windy.  Quite windy in fact.  Perhaps the turbines tripped out and no one noticed.  After all, even if not a single turbine is turning, people still have power.  It’s not like the turbines are in any way whatsoever essential to people having lights, television and clothes dryers.

It’s often said we need an energy mix and wind is part of the mix.  I’m sure investors also told people they needed a good portfolio mix and Bernie Madoff’s firm should be part of the mix…….

Earth Day 2013

John Kerry says climate change is the most serious threat to national security today. He is right, but not for the reasons he states.

Climate change belief has the potential to drag the world back to the stone age. That constitutes a serious threat to all of humanity.

We enjoy a standard of living people in the Dark Ages could not even imagine. Humans feed, clothe and house 7 billion of their own. Hunger and lack of services are often due to politics—oppressive governments, wars, etc. Third world nations are rising up out of poverty and joining the US, Europe , Canada and others with warm houses, plenty of food, and a high standard of living. India and China are catching up to the US with their industries.

Lifespans are long, diseases can be vaccinated against, medical care handles complex surgeries and organ transplants. We have very fortunate lives in comparison to past generations.

All of this comfort and gains are the enemy of the climate change promoters. Modern life, based on fossil fuel usage, is killing the planet. Some say it is too late—but wait, it’s too late to avoid all climate change but we can limit it. We just need 90 mpg cars (remember when Ralph Nader lamented selling of dangerous cars like very lightweight, high mileage cars? Not anymore—now it’s save the planet, not the person), wind turbines, solar panels, water rationing, less consumption of goods—you get the idea. Radical activists go so far as to say humans are a blight upon the earth.

The major component for fixing climate change is money—billion, trillions of dollars redistributed by the UN most likely. Kerry says the US needs a carbon tax (one supposes he does understand what damage this will do to an already weak economy but does not care). Money—that’s how we fix climate change.

Considering the astronomical cost of wind and solar, and the physical limits of such power, a loss of industries and home electrical use is the inevitable outcome if these methods are continued. Wind and solar are variable at best. Storage is being explored, but has not been successful large scale. There are no replacements, short of nuclear power, that are practical to replace fossil fuels. Ending fossil fuel usage means ending modern society, unless a reasonable replacement is found very, very soon. Currently, there is mostly a push to use the marginal wind and solar and live with limited power.

Many will argue such drastic measures are not necessary—moderate changes are enough. This does not go with the climate change apocalypse predicted by Hansen if we don’t take drastic action now. It seems drastic change is our only choice now. Hansen is again saying Earth could end up like Venus if we don’t take drastic action.

Whether or not ACC is “real”, current calls to drastic action represent a far greater threat to humans than climate change itself—or at best, the prospects for good resolution are equal for both ideas. Driving the world down to pre-industrial levels will be devastating. Massive wealth redistribution will be devastating,. Will waiting be devastating? Maybe, but it seems less dangerous than applying the “cure” of stopping fossil fuel usage completely. Humans have been remarkably adaptable for thousands of years and will continue to be.

We have an obligation to use our resources wisely and to keep our rivers, forests and land in the best condition possible. This does not mean declaring resources off limits or preserving huge chunks of land free from human habitation for posterity. We are part of the earth, not a parasite that needs to be destroyed. We are adaptable and resourceful. Trying to destroy the gains made by technology won’t save the planet nor the human race. The nobel savage was never truly noble. Celebrate Earth Day by being thankful for the world we live and thrive in today.

Save an eagle

http://elkodaily.com/news/opinion/letter-wind-turbines-kill-fewer-birds/article_cbb317d4-95b1-11e2-8aa6-001a4bcf887a.html

This is a link to a letter to the editor of an Elko newspaper telling everyone how benign wind energy is.  ”Only 200,000 birds” whacked annually by turbines.  No fines either.  Just fine the evil oil companies.  It’s their fault.  If they hadn’t put all that nasty CO2 in the air we wouldn’t need to be building wind turbines that really don’t work but look like we care.  Since we care, we can kill birds.

This is the “logic” of the wind industry.  They can kill all the birds they need to.  It’s for the planet.  I have yet to see the wind industry step in and object to the fines levied against oil or complain that it’s not really fair the wind industry gets a free pass at killing raptors and other birds.  The wind industry is not asking the oil companies not be fined nor are they asking that wind be fined.  Fairness does not enter in any way.

Honestly, they care nothing about the birds.  They do care what you think about turbines whacking birds, so they try and argue only a few raptors meet a horrible death for part-time energy generation that uses massive natural resources and provides very little energy.  Maybe that argument works.  It’s probably not that hard to argue that killing birds is okay if it saves the planet.  It would sound much worse if one said “It’s okay to kill birds so we, the wind industry, can continue to lap up subsidies and keep our really high-paying jobs”.   They care nothing about birds.  They care about money.

Wind is NOT benign.  It takes thousands of acres of land, billions of tones of mining and refining, billions of gallons of fossil fuel for building and transporting, and the use of toxic materials and dealing with radioactive materials to manufacture.  The turbines MAY last 20 years, though that number is questionable.  Plus, if we start making 5 MW land turbines, there is the push to replace the 2.5 MW turbines with bigger ones.  More energy produced.  More mining, more manufacturing, more deconstruction, more construction.  There is nothing “benign” about wind energy.  It’s a huge tax on resources and yields virtually no CO2 savings.

Save the birds by opposing wind energy.  The eagles will thank you.

A Look at Wind and Money

I read a comment last week that said wind energy was so much more altruistic than oil. These companies care about future generations, unlike Big Oil, which gets government subsidies and won’t “pay it’s fair share”.

Is that true? Certainly not for the biggest wind energy companies. Many utility companies have negative tax rates (from Mother Jones news):

Company Earnings Tax Rate

GE 19.6 billion -18.9%

NextEra 8.8 billion – 2.0%

Pacific Gas and Electric 8.2 billion – 8.4%

Apache (oil and gas) 6 billion – .3%

Consolidated Edison 5.9 billion – 1.3%

Of the companies, NextEra Energy received $2 billion in PTC from its wind plants over 5 years. Okay, they are trying to save the planet, right? NextEra Energy recently built a natural gas plant on the edge of the Everglades. Natural Gas. It’s cleaner than coal, but it’s still fossil fuel. NextEra gets a tax break for helping to save the planet, then builds a fossil fuel plant.

Duke Energy is another interesting example. Their tax “burden”? -3.9%. Yes, that is a negative number. For a “caring” company involved in wind energy.

Wind companies often use their contributions to local economies as a selling point. Duke Energy filed for a reduction of $800,000 million in property tax on its “Top of the World” wind plant in 2012. This was not the first such filing. In Florida (Citrus County), Duke Energy appealed $16.8 million in property taxes after paying 19.3 million of the total bill. Schools, firefighters and police were adversely affected. Citrus County appropriated $350,000 to fight this reduction. Duke also fought with Ohio over taxes due there. There does not seem to be much altruism involved here.

Duke received $11 million in 1603 grants for the “Top of the World” plant. They also received $200 million stimulus money for grid improvements in 2009. Then there was the $125 million for advanced clean coal—a credit from the DOE.

What has Duke done with its earnings? In 2012, the company “loaned” the DNC $10 million for their convention in Denver. The $10 million was a loan because the Democratic Party did “not take corporate donations”. After the election, the loan was forgiven and Duke wrote it off as a business expense. This cost shareholders $6 million dollars. There was also $1.5 million in inkind donations and $4 million to a group that promoted conventions in Denver.

None of the things point to any altruism in the wind industry—in fact, they are “business as usual”: currying favor with politicians with huge donations and trying to cut down the revenue they sold the towns on when they asked to put up turbines. Just like oil and gas, wind is ALL about money.

This blogspot has very detailed information on the money game in the wind industry:

http://greencorruption.blogspot.com/2013/01/big-wind-energy-subsidies-hurricane-of.html#.UUX0daWihAN

What direction?

I have been away from this blog for a while because I am uncertain which direction wind plants are going.  Our president wants more tax revenue and loopholes closed, but gave wind a huge handout.  How does one figure out a response to this totally irrational behaviour?  Money is given to an industry that does not provide a real service to society to save 37,000 estimated jobs, yet Hewlett Packard will lay off 29,000 real jobs and no government bailout or tax credit or even any mention of the loss of jobs.  This is NOT about jobs in any way.  It’s about “green energy” and “political correctness”, not science, efficiency, not employment, etc.  Obama said he would follow the science in decisions, but blew right past the science on wind turbines (pun intended) and their lack of usefulness, and now is being urged to block the Keystone pipeline in spite of  the science saying there is no environmental threat.  How does one answer something so senseless and meritless?

Keep plugging away at the grass-roots people who pay for this waste is one way.  Keep plugging away at the lack of science and the senseless waste.  The current lack of money in the government could work in favor of stopping waste, if there was any logic or sense to the way government spending occurs.   Perhaps the overall cuts will have some effect.  If nothing else, the uncertainty slows progress.

Sometimes I agree with a post I read several years ago that getting loud and seen is the best answer.  This person made the argument that embarrassment is what finally stops the foolishness.  Get out, make noise, get arrested (only kidding) just as those who oppose Keystone do.  Having lived through the 60′s, I’m not sure, but I’m looking at all options.  For now, I will keep reporting the waste and lack of usefulness.  Perhaps that will get through as America realized it cannot pay for every pet project of every special interest group.  When it comes down to affording food or affording spinning towers of death that soothe one’s conscience about living lie in an industrial society, I’m betting food wins.

 

A Brief Review of Wind Power

1. Wind power benefits multimillion dollar corporations, many of them oil companies. By supporting wind, one allows tax breaks for oil companies. All the while complaining about tax breaks for Big Oil. The hypocrisy seems to go unnoticed.

2. People invest in wind not to save the planet but to MAKE MONEY. If tomorrow wind became a liability, all would drop it and invest in coal, NG or whatever made them money. Al Gore confirmed this beyond a shadow of a doubt selling his TV station to middle east oil.

3. Wind in NOT renewable. The term is deliberately deceptive. First, the only way to use wind is to build huge “traps” with spinning blades. Millions and millions of tons of mining and refining is involved, plus manufacturing, shipping and building. The lifespan of the turbines was predicted to be 20 years, but 5 to 10 seems closer in many cases. Wind is not renewable. We cannot make more wind, we can only wait until nature decides to make the wind blow. There will always be wind but how much and where changes. Wind is “renewable” in the same way game and wild berries are. People survived for centuries wandering about snaring rabbits and picking berries. The bunnies and the berries always came back. The rate at which they came back depended on the amount harvested. If there were too many people, some people would starve unless they moved to a different area. “Renewable” wind is the same. People can use wind when it blows but will sit in the dark and cold when it does not. We are going backward.

4. The choice between food and fuel dilemma grows larger. The British are reportedly already “fuel poor”. How long will people used to food, fuel and other necessity being within their reach tolerate choosing between heat and food? Wind and solar are extremely expensive. They provide only part-time electricity and stress the grid. Already people in Europe are clear cutting forests to heat their homes. Imagine the environmental damage from clear cutting forests everywhere so people can stay warm when the wind doesn’t blow. This is not saving the planet.

5. Wind “farms” (a name meant to mislead—there is nothing similar to a farm involved in industrial wind plants. Turbines do not grow from seeds and turbines don’t grow wind.) are often said to have a small footprint and farming can go on around them. Yes, but this true of virtually EVERY form of energy generation and of subdivisions. There is open space all around power plants, around houses in subdivisions, etc. With homes and conventional power plants, you can choose what areas you want them in. With turbines, they go where the wind blows. Even if that means cutting hundreds of trees on mountaintops to put them in. Even if that means endangering sage grouse to put them in. Turbines cannot be put in cities unless they are small, personal turbines. Industrial turbines are noisy, cause vibration and can throw ice. That means more limitations on where these can be put. Oil and gas can be drilled in and around homes and towns. Once the drilling is over, a pump-jack goes in and is very quiet. Photos of oil fields used to dissuade people concerning oil are often on BLM land where no one lives. The area looks barren because the government owns it, not because of oil and gas.

6. We need turbines as part of our energy portfolio. One question—do you put losing stocks in your portfolio so you have diversified investments? Wind is a loser. Why are we putting it in our portfolio?

7. What about climate change? Or more accurately, anthropomorphic climate change. There has been no significant warming in over 10 years. Europe and Russia are buried in snow this winter. Australia was hot, the Arctic ice melted and refroze like it does every year. The entire theory is falling apart rapidly. Plus, wind needs backup power so any CO2 saving may be wiped out by manufacturing and backup pollution. Europe, China and India are all building coal fired power plants because wind does not suffice. With a tiny number of countries cutting emissions, all wind does is drive up the cost of energy. (Note: A thoroughly depressed economy uses less fuel, until the resources get stressed and things deteriorate rapidly. It’s generally not a good choice.)