[NUKELIES]

EyesWideOpen I don't think anybody is stating that windmills can't create electricity, merely that large-scale wind farms can be used for political and financial purposes in the same way that any other form of energy generation can be manipulated for ulterior ends.

[EyesWideOpen]

@ NukeLies

The initial post implied that Wind Farms may be some type of "Dump Load"; thereby, not producing electricity. Still not sure why A/C power would need a "Dump Load", I can understand D/C power requiring that.

Regarding someone seeing a Wind Mill turning when THEY PERSONALLY do not feel wind is a little misleading, since that person was most likely not at the same elevation as the Wind Mill. It can be perfectly still on the ground, yet 100 feet up the wind can be felt.

I would have to agree with Mooninquier's April 23rd post. Furthermore, I see absolutely no problem with the Government helping to fund new energy technologies that at the current time make no economic sense; shekels should not be the only consideration in developing new technologies and increasing ones knowledge about things.

[rerevisionist]

The phrase was 'dummy load', not dump load. I assume this means it's turned by grid electricity, not by the wind. However, it would have same effect as a small dumpload.

With respect, you don't seem to have grasped the main point about wind power, which is the colossal cost of these things as compared with the small amount of electricity. It couldn't work in a poor country - it would be like asking them to build a huge dam for a trickle of current. Windmills of the modern power type only take some of the energy from the circle which their blades encompass. The output is quite small. A Dutch windmill only has to power a grinding stone; a sailing boat only has to push a boat; a fully-rigged ship is only a fairly small thing - think by comparison of the Titanic with three huge engines (and a fourth dummy funnel). A small windmill can power a pump to get some water from an artesian well. For that matter, a solar panel can help warm a house.

It's perfectly fine that governments fund serious research. But they shouldn't fund scams, and climate change, and windfarms, and many other government-funded things, are scams - subsidies for things known not to work efficiently. They are damaging, because the best way to use these things is not considered.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Regarding someone seeing a Wind Mill turning when THEY PERSONALLY do not feel wind is a little misleading, since that person was most likely not at the same elevation as the Wind Mill. It can be perfectly still on the ground, yet 100 feet up the wind can be felt.

I've heard that argument before. But what I said was, I can get on the computer, and look up wind speeds on weatherunderground.com from various weather stations in the area, and some of them are as high, or higher, than the wind turbines. And I have seen them say, zero wind with zero gusts, and the wind mills were turning. I am not relying on human perception.

Also, I have seen things like, one wind rotor pointed west, and another right beside of it pointed north, and they both were turning. Does the wind blow in two different directions at once?

Also, I have seen all the wind rotors pointed all parallel to the line they are situated in, and all turning. Now tell me; if one wind turbine absorbs the power from the wind, then what is turning the next one right behind it? And the next, and the next, all the way down through 175 or so wind turbines, all in almost a line?

Also, and this is a real kicker; when the wind gets up to about 20 mph, the wind mills are shut down, and the blades feathered. You know what I mean by 'feathered'? The blades are turned straight into the wind, so there is no angle; no reaction to the wind. It's done on multi-engine prop planes when an engine fails. With the blades feathered, they cannot turn by wind power. So, then I'm told, they shut down automatically when the wind blows too much, to prevent damage. But the manufacturers data says they will operate in winds up to 58 mph, and the wind has never gotten that high in that location, even in gusts, since the wind farm was built. Besides, they usually let a few run: Not all are shut down, usually. So it's not an automatic shut down by the machinery. And the wind isn't near the shutdown point. It's not even the point of rated capacity, which is about 35 mph.

They are controlled by a central place. The manufacturer, Gamesa, says on their website that their windmills can be remote controlled.

[Sorensen731]

In Spain, solar farms were caught producing at night! They burned fuel at night and collect the subsidy as "solar energy".

http://www.libertaddigital.com/economia ... 276389861/
(Spanish)

A critical analysis of "renewable" energy in Spain, by the independent Juan de Mariana Institute
juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
(English version)

They were invited to the US Senate to give their opinion compared to the media romantic idealization of renewable, "clean" energies.
In Spain, they were censored, but in the States their arguments were used to stop Obama from jumping completely into windmills.

There were huge subsidies for the clever companies who jumped to get them, they calculate 2.3 jobs could have been created for each government subsided one. (They could sell it as geostrategic defense, but they don't)

It's not usually said that windmills play unfair, they get priority in the net, they force more efficient alternatives, like coal, fuel or gas plants to shut down when they start to get wind, incurring loses and lowering their statistics unfairly, this way windmill are overrated, and decentralization is not achieved either, they are installed as big farms in the mountains, not inside cities. Most reporting in the press is biased in their favor.

[EyesWideOpen]

I can get on the computer, and look up wind speeds on weatherunderground.com from various weather stations in the area, and some of them are as high, or higher, than the wind turbines. And I have seen them say, zero wind with zero gusts, and the wind mills were turning. I am not relying on human perception.

Also, I have seen things like, one wind rotor pointed west, and another right beside of it pointed north, and they both were turning. Does the wind blow in two different directions at once?

Unless one has a Wind Instrument right in front of the windmill that is turning, it is unfair to say no wind is hitting the object. Winds are different in every location imaginable, be it 50 horizontal feet away or 50 vertical feet away from the Wind Mill. If the "weather station" is not directly in front of the Wind Mill and at the same elevation, then the measurement is useless. In no way can one make an educated statement based on wind speeds from a location OTHER than directly at the Wind Mill. weatherunderground.com and various Internet Sites should certainly not be used.

Furthermore, blades facing in different directions can turn at the same time. All a curved blade needs is to catch a hint of wind. The energy output will certainly be different based on wind direction and blade direction.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Unless one has a Wind Instrument right in front of the windmill that is turning, it is unfair to say no wind is hitting the object.

In Australia, they made the argument that if they built enough wind farms, scattered all over Australia, that somewhere, the wind would be blowing at anytime. About two years ago, the Australian government published a report on wind power that concluded that when the wind doesn't blow, it doesn't blow all over.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I walked up on the strip mine a week ago. There was a hill there with a clear view of the wind farm, from the other side of what I usually see. I was almost as high as the wind rotors. At least as high as half way up the tower they sit on. One of the arguments that I usually get is, "Where you're at the winds might no be blowing, but up high where the wind turbines are, the wind is blowing." Well, here I was standing almost level with a few of the lower ones, and they were all turning, and there was hardy any wind. A little breath now and then; enough to wave a grass blade.

And there's a coal burning electrical plant there in view also (the place where they burnt all the coal from under where I was standing). The smoke from the chimneys was going straight up for a hundred feet or more, and then lazily drifting to the right.

I would like sometime to get a picture with the smoke going straight up, and all the mills turning. But I don't get up there much and I don't have a video camera. OR any camera anymore.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

A few days ago, I walked out into a field where I could see fifteen or so of these turbines. The first five in the row were pointed west. Two were pointed southwest. The rest, eight or so, were pointed south. They were all turning.

So there you go: Proof that the wind can blow two directions at once, at a ninety degree angle.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Scrapping wind farms in favour of nuclear and gas will save each of us £550

By Fiona Macrae

Last updated at 12:05 AM on 7th November 2011


Comments (111)
Add to My Stories
Share


Shelving expensive wind farms in favour of cheaper nuclear and gas-fired power stations would save every Briton almost £550, it is claimed.

Government plans to cut pollution by a third by 2020 rely heavily on wind power and will cost £108billion to implement, an accountancy firm has calculated.

But shifting the emphasis away from turbines and towards nuclear and gas-fired power stations would slash the bill by £34billion, according to KPMG.

This equates to around £550 for every person in the country.



The preliminary conclusions of the Thinking About the Affordable report come as spiralling gas and electricity bills have left millions worrying about how they will keep warm this winter.

The average annual dual fuel bill stands at £1,345, almost double the £740 of five years ago.

Bills are predicted to rise another 25 per cent over the next four years, taking one in four households—7.25million—into fuel poverty.




Wind turbines produce around 5 per cent of the country’s electricity, or enough to power 3.2million homes. This will increase around five-fold by 2020 under plans to raise the amount of green energy produced, while cutting carbon emissions.

But wind power is one of the most expensive forms of electricity generation to build.

For instance, an offshore wind farm capable of powering 800,000 homes would cost £2.4billion. The bill for an equivalent power station fired by gas, a cleaner alternative to coal, would come in at £400million, or one sixth of the amount.



Wind farms and nuclear power stations cost similar amounts, but turbines are seen as more expensive as depending on nature means they often operate at a fraction of full capacity.

KPMG, which advises the Government on energy pricing, says wind power is too expensive. Mark Powell, the report’s author, said: ‘Taking a clinical economist’s view of hitting our carbon-reduction targets for the least cost shows we can reach our goal for a lot less.

‘However, to do this, the most expensive forms of renewable energies, particularly offshore wind, need to be scaled back.

‘Trying to meet carbon targets with a heavy reliance on renewable energy was a laudable vision but ... it’s time to face facts on how the huge level of investment may translate into fuel poverty.’

He said focusing on gas-fired and nuclear power plants would help Britain reach its target of a 34 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide by 2020 and increase the level of energy from renewable resources to 15 per cent.

The bill, which will be footed by the consumer, would fall from £108billion to £74billion.

But the wind industry said the figures do not factor in points such as the farms being cheaper to run or benefits of not being reliant on imported gas.

The Energy Department echoed the criticism, saying KPMG ‘ignored long-term benefits to customers of energy sources that involve no on-going fuel costs’.


[/quote]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-550.html

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Former Chancellor Lord Lawson yesterday led the backing for Prince Philip after he branded wind farms ‘absolutely useless’.

In a scathing attack, the Duke of Edinburgh said the turbines were ‘completely reliant on subsidies’ and ‘would never work’.

His comments are a rebuke to the Government, which is trying to increase the amount of energy generated by wind farms and other renewable technologies.

Last night Lord Lawson said the Duke was ‘spot on’ and speaking on behalf of ordinary people in fuel poverty.

Philip made the remarks to Esbjorn Wilmar, managing director of Infinergy, which is building offshore turbines around Britain.

Mr Wilmar said he introduced himself to the 90-year-old Duke at a reception and suggested he put wind turbines on royal property.

‘He said that they were absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidies and an absolute disgrace. I was surprised by his very frank views,’ he said.

When Mr Wilmar tried to argue that onshore turbines are one of the most cost-effective forms of renewable energy, the Duke apparently replied: ‘You don’t believe in fairy tales do you?’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eless.html

[FirstClassSkeptic]

The second great lie about wind power is the pretence that it is not a preposterously expensive way to produce electricity. No one would dream of building wind turbines unless they were guaranteed a huge government subsidy.

This comes in the form of the Renewables Obligation Certificate subsidy scheme, paid for through household bills, whereby owners of wind turbines earn an additional £49 for every 'megawatt hour' they produce, and twice that sum for offshore turbines.

This is why so many people are now realising that the wind bonanza — almost entirely dominated in Britain by French, German, Spanish and other foreign-owned firms — is one of the greatest scams of our age.
The third great lie is that this industry is somehow making a vital contribution to 'saving the planet' by cutting our emissions of CO2 - it is not

What other industry gets a public subsidy equivalent to 100 or even 200 per cent of the value of what it produces?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... m-age.html

Critics of wind energy are absolutely right—the entire idea of wind energy is nonsense. It’s utterly impractical and unsuitable for the production of electricity. It’s a government subsidized fraud. It’s a huge waste of resources, breathtaking in its transparent and inevitable futility, and it destroys our quality of life (and valuable habitat for wildlife) by industrializing vast tracts of land, even as it promises to save us from the sins and excesses of prior, arguably much more defensible, forms of industrialization.

http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news ... zed-fraud/

Then he argues for nuclear power, which is just as much of a fraud.