Leave a comment

Kill the eagles, enrich the profiteers

Wyoming joins with other states in killing eagles, enriching oil men and corporate millionaires and destroying the environment. The wind plant in Boxelder canyon is being started, even without lawsuits settled and take permits issued. Why? Because if the thing is not operational by the end of 2016, there’s no contract demanding the power company buy the energy at an outrageous price. Thank you government intervention.

People always said Wyoming was only interested in money while developing oil. Not true—oil heats homes and powers cars.  Wind plants are useless and only interested in government handouts. The wind industry cannot live without government support. It’s all about holding people at gunpoint and taking their money and destroying the environment for a huge check. It’s as immoral as one can get, considering everyone of these people KNOW wind is just damaging the environment while making them rich. These people make oil companies look like saints. They lie about the usefulness of wind, they steamroll over people and put in the plants (never mind the blessed UN that they so love called wind plants a violation of human rights—like they care about human rights if it stands in the way of money grubbing). I am tired of all this RICO act stuff concerning global warming. How about a RICO investigation into who profits from destroying the environment with useless wind turbines?

I have not gone back to Boxelder Canyon since the project was announced. It was a beautiful drive, filled with wildlife and flora. Now, it will be a shrine to Al Gore and his lies and the greed and lack of caring by those who lie about wanting to save the environment.  I don’t know where the turbines will be located, nor will I ever know.  It’s so disgusting and vile I will never return to any part of the area.

IMG_5487

Elk

IMG_5461

Wildflowers

IMG_5452

Wildflowers

IMG_5429

Waterfall on Boxelder Canyon

Leave a comment

Fire around turbines, Turbine parts

There was a prairie fire last fall that burned all around the turbines north of Casper.  Pictures:

DSCN9369DSCN9368DSCN9367DSCN9362

This was a fast moving grass fire that started at the municipal landfill and spread due to 50 mph winds.  No one will admit guilt, and most of the county residents are angry with the whole mess.  The fire burned down 12 houses.  There was a “Thanks Landfill” sign up for quite some time.  Current claims are being processed.  I don’t know if the turbines were damaged or not—I don’t think so.

 

Environmentally friendly?

A new storage area was put in at the Natrona County airport for wind turbine parts.  It reportedly took 22 million tons of rock to create a base on which to store the parts, due, of course, to their size and weight.  I have trouble imagining 22 million tons of rock as being environmentally friendly—I can only imagine the pit left when the rock was removed.  The story was in Wyoming Business Report, where it said the turbines need wind velocities of 7 to 40 mph any of which generates the same amount of electricity.  It seems the writer is not aware of Betz’s Law.  Not good.

As of late, we have had very high winds and the turbines have cut out repeatedly.  So much for the “wonderful Wyoming wind”.  All it does is shut down the machines.

The only up side is the article said the company is being charged $1500 per month with some increases over what may be a five year term.

Here are some pictures of the facility:

DSCN0164DSCN0160DSCN0158DSCN0154DSCN0147DSCN0144DSCN0142

Leave a comment

Wyoming has wind so let’s make power—NOT

Today the wind is blowing 48 mph at the airport.  Cool, you think, those turbines are making electricity.  Except they aren’t.  Many have hit cutout speed and are not moving at all.  A week ago going to Utah, I notice that phenomena in the turbines near Evanston.  Many were not turning, probably due to the blizzard and high winds that had recently occurred.

“Average” wind speed in no way indicates the possible productivity of turbines.  In fact, some states with lower average wind speeds actually produce more electricity because the turbines don’t cut out.

The forecast is for gusts over 65 mph and at least one semi tractor trailer has already blown over south of town.  This is NOT good for wind plants.  It stresses all the turbines and produces no more electricity than a 30 mph wind.  Yet even those who should know better seem to insist putting turbines in 60 mph areas is okay.  It’s only okay because they get government handouts.  Private industry on it’s own could never afford this waste of resources.

Not all turbines stop turning in high wind.  This gives the illusion that something is being generated when it is not and feeds the idea that high wind is desirable.  The turbines cut-out and remain cut-out until the wind drops below a certain threshold.  This costs production time but helps protect the turbines.  In high wind areas, like Casper, Wyoming today, all the turbines are doing is cutting out and not moving or spinning uselessly in the 48 mph wind.

Wind is NOT a good way to generate electricity.  Never was, probably never will be.  It’s just not practical, even with storage.  It lacks energy density and requires huge stretches of land, damages the environment and is a return to nostalgia that is only designed to make money for those on the government dole.  It’s a feel-good idea that actually dooes a lot of damage.

Remember that next time you’re tempted to say  “can’t we use the wind for generation?.  The answer is NO.

Broken turbine

Leave a comment

It’s a New Year

Seems I have been neglecting this blog as of late.  Perhaps it’s because wind energy has slowed to a near halt in my state.  Yes, the billionaire from Colorado continues to try and destroy the prairie in southern Wyoming by installing 1000 bird-chomping, bat killing eco-crucifixes* along I-80, but the reluctance of California to buy wind energy out of state (not to mention their on-going drought and declining economy) plus the complexity of putting a huge, environmentally unfriendly power line across multiple states has stalled the project.  Now that Speaker of the House Judas has sold out the country and reinstated the damaging, line-the-pockets of Democrats and welfare lovers everywhere PTC, there may be a renewed interest in the project.  After all, who can say no to stealing millions from the populace to increase the billions you already have?

 
A couple of days ago in the paper there was an interesting article on wind energy.  To the credit of the person being  interviewed, thus far he was resisting the six-figure welfare payments from the wind energy for turbine space rental, but he said he “believed in wind energy”.  This struck me as very peculiar.  After all, people “believe in UFO’s” and people “believe in ghosts” and people believe in energy sources the government is hiding from us, natural cures which the hawkers thereof insist the pharmaceutical companies are suppressing and 200 mpg carburetors.  Belief does not equal reality.  Believing in wind energy in no way makes it viable or useful or even desirable.  Yet somehow, this is used as a justification for destroying the environment, increasing energy costs and many other negative outcomes.  If someone said “I believe in ghosts and I want a federal subsidy for housing to be built for these ghosts”, one hopes this would be laughed out of existence.  Yet, “I believe in wind energy” nets huge grants and tax breaks for virtually no return on investment.  The turbines might as well be housing for ghosts.  I don’t know.  Maybe they are and someone was clever enough to ask for the turbines instead of ghost housing……They certainly aren’t saving the planet nor are they providing any useful energy.  Yet, people “believe”.

 
There is also the problem of why wildlife should be saved.  We were always told the ESA and so forth were to save the animals.  So in California, water goes to fish while humans are starved out of farming.  The long suspected, now proven, idea that the ESA was anti-human, anti-industry is true.  In addition, the wind energy is given a free pass on killing virtually all creatures, as is solar.  In what can only be considered complete insanity, companies like Duke Energy can get passes on killing eagles with a turbine, but fines for such a death at a conventional power plant.  Translation:  “We are not opposed to killing and extinction of animals if it falls in with our political agenda.”  When politics enters, all sanity and science vanishes.  There exists no protection for any animal that stands in the way of the rabid environmentalists.

 

*thank you James Delingpole for the term

 

 

Leave a comment

Barbie?

I found this while surfing:

http://www.girlgames.com/barbie-wind-princess-dress-up.html

“Barbie Wind Princess Dress Up
Barbie is queen of the winds, and as the super powered goddess of the breezes, she’s here to bring the sky down to an appropriate level. Find and harness that power to build a wind powered sewing machine to build the perfect dress for this princess. Barbie can travel on the wind, so make sure she’s traveling in style!”

I cannot find the instructions for that wind powered sewing machine anywhere in the game.  Lots of costumes that are magically moved to Barbie.  Maybe the wind powered sewing machine is magic too.  Of course it is.  There’s no such thing, but when trying to sell impossible ideas to innocent children, magic and lies and misrepresentations are the name of the game.

This also displays a complete lack of understanding of the history of sewing.  There were treadle sewing machines that required no electricity, just foot power.  I sewed on one when I was—my mother had it.  They’re still out there if you want one.  The idea that you would need wind power to make a sewing machine work is just wrong.  Same is true of many machines:  you can get reel-type lawnmowers, treadle lathes for woodworking, etc.  NO WIND is in any way required.  This is another misrepresentation intended to fool people into thinking wind is the answer.  Better education on tools and how they work would be money better spent.

http://www.energy.gov/articles/5-energy-halloween-costumes-you-can-make-home

Costumes for your little political pawn to wear on Halloween.  Again, it’s fine to prostitute your kid for the sake of useless monstrosities that kill birds, destroy the landscape and do nothing but make already rich corporations stealing taxpayer money.  My suggestion:  Dress up as that eagle that the wind turbine whacked out of the sky.  Sure, some may find that offensive—people often find the truth offensive if it threatens their sacred beliefs.  At least the bloody, dead eagle is honest.

Leave a comment

When science and math divorce

From Science of Doom’s series on renewables, listed as “A brief summary of reality:”

The fact that at some times of peak demand there will be little or no wind or solar power doesn’t mean it provides no benefit – you simply need to “backup” the wind / solar with a “dispatchable” plant, i.e. currently a conventional plant. If you are running on wind “some of the time” you are displacing a conventional plant and saving GHG emissions, even if “other times” you are running with conventional power.

Interesting since generally Science of Doom is very good at math and at reality.  Let’s take a look at an analogy.  You buy, with very generous government subsidies, a $10,000 bicycle (costs you $500 after the generous donation of taxpayers).  You ride the bicycle to work 1 day per week to “save the environment from the evil greenhouse gases” that your car generates.  We will ignore the idea of buying an electric car, since without that 100% renewable fantasy coming true, you’re still using fossil fuels.  Once purchased, the bike is “fossil free” much the same as the claim for wind.

Now, numbers.  You drive 5 miles round trip to work, 20 miles of it using your car, 5 miles on the bicycle.  That’s a twenty percent savings.  Does anyone know of a request from the IPCC or governments to save 20% on energy and the planet will be saved?  It’s always 30 percent or more.  If 30% were the minimum, then the 20% would actually be ineffective.  Remember, too, this only saves output from electrical generation, not automobiles, trucks, and construction equipment.  In reality, the contributions to savings is probably less than 5%.

SoD does touch on land usage, etc, though again, I’m not sure how realistic the numbers are.   Wind turbines require huge tracts of land for a large plant.  It’s not practical to put them in towns—too great a danger of ice throw, blades coming loose and falling, etc.   Every turbine takes at least a 300 foot radius of land out of farming for the same reasons.  In the past, farmer could plow right up to the turbine.  However, that wonderful, benevolent energy has a rather mean streak and could kill if something went wrong.  I doubt SoD has any idea what 500 turbines in one area do to the landscape, nor perhaps does SoD care.  This is science, not social policy, right?

The premise that “renewable energy” ( a scientifically incorrect term—it’s resource intensive power with free fuel producing only on its own timetable) is desirable is assumed in the discussion, so far as I can tell.  That is fine for an analysis, but before that analysis is turned into policy, the question of “renewables” being desirable has to be addressed.  Otherwise, all that “science” just means a huge waste of money on a useless item.  This is the norm for governmental policies, but should science start falling into that habit, it ceases to be science and starts being politics.  (Note: SoD generally addresses just the science, so this is not a criticism per se.  I want people to be aware that there is much outside of the science itself to be considered.)

The original article came from The Conversation and was written by a professor of environmental studies who does work in sustainable development and renewable energy.  Again, this source presupposes that it is self-evident renewables are a good thing.  When you start with the premise that something is self-evidently true, everything from that point on is based on faulty premise (very few things are self-evident and this is not one of them).  He also seems delighted that people who work in coal mines will be unemployed because it will further his dream of 100% renewables.  Of course, he won’t lose his high-paying job, so who cares, right?  Of course, the workers may be able to move to a third world country and mine copper, tin, iron ore, lithium or some other component needs of wind turbine manufacturing and maintainance.  But not in his country, of course.

In the end, it seems thousands of acres of land for turbines, mining, manufacturing and installation is acceptable to cut a few percentage points off the carbon footprint of a country.  That’s science divorcing math.  Fortunately, science has meet fantasy land and will live happily everafter.  Humans will not fare so well under this new arrangement.

 

Broken turbine

Blade failure

Medicine Bow turbines-1

The new forests of the renewable era

turbinesblockingelkmountain

Another forest installation of the future

Leave a comment

The Wind Man Cometh

Beware. There’s considerable evidence that Philip Anschutz plans to pillage Wyoming with 1000 eco-crucifixes giving glory to the god Gaia. He is running “values” ads over and over and over on sharing, generosity, etc. I’m guessing that’s to soften up the population before the carnage begins. Plus, there’s the newspaper articles extolling the virtues of having the Wyoming landscape destroyed so Jerry Brown can brag about California’s carbon reductions. (Want carbon reductions? Shut down all the businesses in your state–it’s really, really effective.)

Anschutz is constantly quoted as saying he loves western vistas. Maybe, but only those he can’t destroy in the name of profit. Or maybe it’s a beautiful vista if he gets cash flow. He was awarded Citizen of the West 2015. This was an appropriate award since the west’s history is filled with wealthy individuals plundering the land, taking whatever they desired and ignoring any ramifications of their actions.

It is unlikely anyone understands the environmental disaster that will result. First, fathoming 1000 turbines in one area is mind-boggling. Wind plants of 30 to 60 turbines cover hundreds of acres. Roads will be cut everywhere, literally tons and tons of concrete will be poured after digging caverns to pour it into. Concrete is a major source of CO2 in the atmosphere. Then, hundreds of trips hauling in parts, workers and so forth. The area this is being built on will show scars from this for years. The land will not recover as quickly as people think. This is a high plains desert and when you drive over the land, the grasses and plants are crushed. There are “two-track” roads everywhere in Wyoming because after you drive over the land once or twice, the road is there for the rest of the summer, minimum. Plus, you must have roads between the turbines for maintenance (Yes, you actually do have to maintain your “free” energy and you have to pay someone to do this. You can’t just plant a farm of turbines and then start harvesting the energy.) Wind plants do as much damage as oil exploration, yet for some reason, it’s okay to destroy the prairie for wind but not oil. Some claim it’s because the people who put in wind “care”. The people who put in turbines are the same ones that drill for oil. They love how people are so generous with subsidies on wind. It allows them make a bunch of money.

The noise and low-energy vibrations from a thousand turbines in one area?? No one knows. It is a large area, but we are dealing with an industrial wind plant that is over twice the size of the largest wind plants out there. While no one lives in the area (Certainly not the developer–they NEVER live near the turbines. This one lives in another state.) the turbines will be near an interstate highway.

Wyoming has begun spraying for mosquitoes due to West Nile Virus.  Wind turbines explode the insides of bats, killing them.  Fewer bats means more mosquitoes.  That means more spraying of pesticides to kill the mosquitoes.  It seems wind plants have made chemical control of insects an acceptable practice.  It’s sad they didn’t arrive at this conclusion before banning DDT because bird egg shells were weakened by it.  Who knew that exploding a few million bats would lead to an increase in pesticide use, with the approval of the environmentalists?  For those who would object that environmentalists do not agree, if you kill the bats, you have to kill the mosquitoes or do as was done with DDT in Africa and just let people die.

In the future, odds are millions will be spent trying to clean up 1000 turbines left to rust when people realize this is not a viable energy source. Four hundred foot towers rusting, shredded blades littering the land and hydraulic fluid seeping into the ground everywhere. How anyone could say with a straight face that this is environmentally friendly is a true testament to human beings’ ability to ignore reality and try to force the fantasy of free energy to somehow become real.

All for a rich individual to get richer cashing in on government mandated carbon cuts to fight a nonexistent enemy. It’s the American way, I guess………

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.

William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.