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


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………

Leave a comment

Odds and Ends

On the wind turbine noise front:


Senator David Leyonhjelm wants government to monitor wind turbine noise
It seems the only thing colourful crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm hates more than red tape is wind farming.
Despite typically being a fierce opponent of new government regulation, the Liberal Democrat is calling on the government to set up a new regulator to monitor noise levels near wind turbines.
He claims a Senate inquiry he set up has uncovered “credible evidence” that some people are suffering health concerns caused by low frequency noise and vibrations known as infrasound.   (Click on link for more.)

Wind farm effect on balance ‘akin to seasickness’: scientist
• JUNE 12, 2015 9:21AM
  Medical faculty associate profes­sor of neuroscience Simon Carlile said it was time to properly examine the effects of low-frequency wavelengths and recognise that, like seasickness, they don’t affect everybody.  (Click on link for more.)

It is most interesting to me that researchers are now realizing that some people may be affected and not others.  This makes it much more difficult for the wind industry to say that if not everyone is affected, it’s not real.



At first this looked a bit odd.  The original story came from UFO digest.  (http://ufodigest.com/article/wind-farms-may-be-responsible-mass-honeybee-disappearance)

I’m not sure if there’s any real research on this or it’s just based on correlation, which does not necessarily mean causality.  In searching, I found three interesting research studies being conducted by the University of Wyoming concerning insects and wind turbines.  The links are below.




(Thank you to Ron S. for alerting me to the above articles.)

From various sources:


If only Americans stood up like this.  Environmentalists use this technique, when they’re not advocating killing birds and bats with useless wind turbines.  We need the voices of those who see through the hype to protest the waste and environmental destruction.  Here it is more difficult to get news coverage.  The media is only interested in the hype, not the truth.

Meanwhile, a new analysis recently released by American Bird Conservancy based on federal data found that more than 30,000 turbines have been installed in areas critical to the survival of federally protected birds — with an additional 50,000 turbines planned for construction in similar areas.

Me:  All I think of here is “Silent Spring”.  We couldn’t kill bugs and feed people, but we can build monstrosities that kill birds and bats while desecrating the landscape.  How in any rational person’s mind can computer projections be more real and more important than actual birds?  I suppose the same people that wanted to save the birds and starve people?  It seems that what they “value” is a moving target.

Update:  From the Daily Mail–

Residents to be given onshore wind farm veto: Tories vow to ‘halt the spread’ of turbines by preventing them being ‘imposed on communities without consultation’
Councils in consultation with residents will have final say over windmills
3,000 are currently awaiting consent and could be affected by new rules
Local Government Secretary says communities ‘should be free to decide’
Trade body Renewable UK expresses concerns about new regulations
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3128924/Conservatives-vow-halt-spread-wind-farms-countryside.html#ixzz3dQK9cd1R

Leave a comment

Earth Day 2015

My Earth Day write-up, a bit late:

I was planting seeds for plants for the garden. I got to thinking about environmentalists, etc. I now only buy seeds from one or two seed companies. Last year, I noticed a No GMO logo on many of the catalogs. This resulted in my immediately canceling any company with the logo. I sent them all letters telling them I would not buy from them because my health was dependent on a genetically modified substance. Not one company cared if their non-GMO stance would harm me. They only care that putting Non-GMO on their catalogue increased their sales. So much for the idea that these people “care”. They are as mercenary as any oil company when it comes to profits. It’s about making money, pure and simple.

If you add to this the push to eliminate meat from people’s diets, you end up with millions of dead diabetics. If we can’t synthesize insulin from e-coli bacteria and we do away with livestock, there can be no insulin. I have seen no concern whatsoever about this possibility. Environmentalists only care about the planet, not the people on it.

Then there’s the millions spent on bird-killing paltry sources of so-called renewable energy. It’s a complete lie to call wind and solar renewable. The fuel may be available on nature’s schedule, but until wind and solar convert themselves to electricity on their own, they are not renewable. Mountains of mining, manufacturing and land loss are all a part of this “free” energy. It’s a complete misrepresentation of the reality of a long ago discarded energy source.

More importantly, the money thrown away on these failures could have gone to help people in say, Haiti, who are dirt poor and have no defense against hurricanes, etc. However, global warming is about throwing people into abject poverty, not about helping the poor out of poverty. Poverty has an extremely low carbon foot print. Someone said North Korea was a model for fighting global warming–I forget who it was. I’m hoping they were kidding.

Celebrating Earth day by picking up trash, planting a tree, etc. in fine. No one wants a dirty planet and we can always use more trees (unless it’s a corporation using Costa Rican farms to plant trees and supposedly offset their carbon use–that is unacceptable). However, Earth Day should not be used to guilt children into believing a certain type of light bulb will save the earth or a certain car will destroy the planet. Unfortunately, many people use Earth Day to try and push humanity backward, to the time of disease and poverty. If we really care about people and the Earth, we will start helping those in true poverty rise out of their situation and be able to deal with life more effectively. We can help people and still respect the earth.

Leave a comment

Earth Day 2015

I am still addressing health issues, so my Earth Day post will be delayed.

Feel free to share how you celebrated Earth Day.


Leave a comment

Out for a while

Due to health issues, I will not be blogging as much.  I will return when the issues are resolved.


Wind shows it’s lack of credibility

I learned today that I am not only a “denier” I am a “clean energy hater”. Seriously, the wind industry has nothing to offer now except name-calling? I realize that’s actually true, I’m just surprised to see them so blantantly admitting they can’t sell their product, so they sell hatred instead. Very, very sad.

I suppose I could point out that wind and solar are anything but clean–mining, manufacture, radioactive waste disposal, landscape destruction, bird and bad killing all seem to be less than “clean” energy. Perhaps wind’s definition of “clean” is not what the rest of the world uses? One more like they accuse fossil fuels of using—whatever makes the sellers of “clean” energy money. Maybe it’s not about saving the planet or clean energy at all. The new “hater” term certainly says so.

In reality, I don’t hate clean energy. I just haven’t seen any such thing in the real world.


“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.

The Science of Doom

Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science

Enthusiasm, Scepticism and Science

on the origins and impacts of Global Warming Alarmism in the history and philosophy of science

Knowledge Drift; The Science of Human Error

How bad knowledge contaminates good data

The Carbon Sense Coalition

Wind power is not what is advertised

William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.