|
The same old pledges and platitudes are being rolled out, from Sadiq Khan’s apology in an open letter to UKIP supporters, which then outlines policies designed to entice former Labour voters back to Labour; to David Cameron’s ‘understood and received the message’ soundbite before he went on to proclaim what voters want – with neither party actually asking anyone outside the Westminster bubble why 4.3 million voters put their ‘X’ next to UKIP on the ballot paper A common thread among the legacy parties is that the EU has to ‘change’. Having pushed this line for many months, they now use it as a crutch to declare that this is what voters want, and they all declare that if only we vote for them they will bring about the reforms we apparently want. It is, of course, one huge steaming pile of freshly laid bullshit. Snake oil isn’t close to the product these people are trying to sell. Rather they are pushing a product that makes the fictional element ‘Unobtanium’ in the film Avatar, or the dragons storyline in the TV series Game of Thrones look real in comparison. Whatever ‘reform’ the EU might be persuaded to adopt, it will be trivial and will not result in the return of any powers to the UK that reduce Brussels’ control over the free movement of people, control over the free flow of money to different tax jurisdictions within the bloc, control over the movement of goods and services and the tariffs applied to them. But despite these facts and despite the legion of Eurocrats, Commissioners and MEPs who have stepped forward to point out these facts and explain that the principles of the EU that underpin it are non-negotiable, our politicians and media continue to talk about EU reform as if it is just a negotiation away – and groups claiming to be Eurosceptic continue to make public demands that renegotation is undertaken. So it is that a significant proportion of those people who say they want the UK to remain inside the EU do so because they have been fooled into believing reform is possible. They are being taken in by fantasies and distracted from reality – therefore allowing the politicians to avoid the reality that only invoking Article 50 of the EU Treaty (Lisbon) will result in a renegotiation of the substantive issues and only by leaving the EU will the UK be able to take control of the areas where people want to see change. We can be in, or we can be out. But we can’t be a bit in between. |
corruption
The Documentary, “DOWNWIND”, Premiers – JUNE 4, AT 8 PM. & 11 pm… Don’t Miss It!
TELEVISION PREMIERE OF DOWN WIND ON
SUN NEWS NETWORK — JUNE 4TH AT 8 AND 11 P.M.
Sun News Network will air the television premiere of the documentary film DOWN WIND on Wednesday, June 4 at 8:00 p.m. ET and 11:00 p.m. ET.
DOWN WIND is a tell-all film that deals head on with how Ontario politicians rammed through green energy laws and dashed forward with the installation of thousands of wind turbines across the province’s farmland and countryside.
The film exposes how the lights of liberty went out for Ontario citizens deeply opposed to wind turbine projects. It tells the stories of communities torn apart, and the rural warriors now fighting for their rights, health and happiness.
Sun News Network host and contributor Rebecca Thompson joined Surge Media Productions to create this passionate, yet alarming story of a flawed attempt to green Ontario’s electricity grid.
DOWN WIND debunks the Ontario Liberal government’s propaganda that wind power is economically and environmentally sound, by pointing to jaw-dropping wind subsidies and a fossil fuel back-up system.
The film tells the ugly truth about lucrative big wind power contracts, skyrocketing electricity prices, and the political connections behind it all.
It uncovers the skeptical sales pitch that wind turbines are good for the air and won’t impact health. And it provides a glimmer of hope that this nightmare can be overcome with fair-minded solutions.
Passionate stories, eye-dropping footage and never-before seen interviews are showcased in this highly anticipated Sun News Network film backed financially by hundreds of concerned citizens.
A DVD version, including bonus features, will be available for purchase atwww.DownWindMovie.com following the television release.
Sun News Network is available on cable and satellite across Canada; check your local listings to find it on your dial.
Finally, Some Sanity Returning to Decision-making about Wind Turbines in the UK!
Campaigners claim victory in Thornholme wind farm fight
Coun.Owen said: “It’s been a long time coming but we are delighted at the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, decision to refuse the windfarm application at Thornholme Fields. At last government are now listening to the views of local people and supporting the large number of local objections to the development.
“We hope this is the start of a much firmer stance being taken on windfarm development in the countryside, which is threatening to destroy the very fabric that makes the Yorkshire Wolds such an unique and beautiful place.
“It is hoped that this establishes new ground rules for development and that we look to offshore developments in the future for which the region is well prepared”
Coun Evison added: “Time and time again East Riding planning committee members have refused windfarm applications, representing the views of local people whom they represent, only to have the decision overturned on appeal by the Planning inspectorate. I am pleased that we now have a decision taken that truly reflects local views and I welcome the decision and hope this will send a strong message to any future developers that there is an increasing objection to further on-shore development”
Burton Agnes resident Sue Burt, who campaigned against the development, said: “It was always the wrong development in the wrong location. I think Eric Pickles summed it up, the Wolds landscape is very sensitive to this sort of development and it would have cost damage to Burton Agnes Hall, impacted homes and tourism. Also the cumulative impact of the number of wind turbines in the area is just getting silly.
“I would imagine that those of us who have campaigned against it since 2011 are highly delighted that in our view common sense and local democracy has prevailed.
“It has been a long time coming but I think Eric Pickles has delivered on his statement that the view of the local communities must not be ignored.”
Wind Power Takes….Far More Than it Gives! NO Net Benefit!
Wind Farms: Nothing More than Power-Grid-Parasites
May 27, 2014 by
Apart from the insane cost of propping up near bankrupt wind power outfits – like Infigen – with $ billions in subsidies in the form of the REC Tax/Subsidy – the wind industry gets to “free-ride” on the Australian electricity consumer in at least 2 ways.
The first is getting preferential distribution of the power wind farms manage to dispatch to the grid at crazy, random intervals – at no cost to wind power outfits.
Because the mandatory RET carries with it the threat of a $65 per MWh fine for retailers failing to satisfy the RET, wind power outfits have been able to “encourage” retailers into signing Power Purchase Agreements at rates ($90-120 per MWh) 3-4 times the cost of conventional power generation; under which the retailer receives a Renewable Energy Certificate. The retailer, therefore, avoids the $65 per MWh fine by purchasing a MW of wind power (as part of the PPA) and surrendering a REC as proof of purchase.
With ludicrously high and guaranteed rates under their PPAs, wind power generators are able to underbid all-comers in the dispatch market and – on those occasions when the wind is blowing (usually at night-time) – are happy to drive the dispatch price towards zero and even into negative territory – simply because they will continue to make money at the phenomenal rates guaranteed by their PPAs (see our post here).
The consequence of this Federally mandated market distortion, is that wind power takes precedence over all other forms of generation and – on every occasion when the wind is blowing – results in wind power jumping to the head of the queue.
This results in thermal gas and coal generators having to throttle back their generators; and ramping down output by disengaging turbines. However, boilers continue to run – gas and coal continue to burn – with the plant ready to re-engage the generator at a minute’s notice – ramping up output in order to take up the slack when the wind inevitably – but unpredictably – stops blowing (see our post here).
Forcing thermal plants to ramp output up and down means those plants run much less efficiently than they should – and leads to mountains of wasted coal and gas and, therefore, increased CO2 emissions (see thisEuropean paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; and this Dutch study here).
Wind power outfits don’t bear any of the additional and unnecessary costs suffered by conventional generators in this regard.
And worse, network operators don’t charge wind power operators a cent for the privilege of getting their power into the system on a preferred basis; nor are they charged for the disruption and chaos their utterly unpredictable efforts cause grid managers and conventional generators. So far, so pointlessly costly.
The second way in which wind power gets a “free-ride” at power consumers’ expense is the cost of having other conventional generators supply power to “balance the grid”: which means ensuring that the “voltage”, “phase” and “frequency” of power within the entire grid is kept relatively stable and constant; within defined tolerances. For a brief outline of the fundamentals of grid balancing – see this link.
In a widely dispersed, distributed power generation network – like Australia’s Eastern Grid – this means having sufficient reserve capacity to increase generation output (and, therefore, input to the grid) on a second by second (or minute by minute) basis to maintain “frequency”. This is done largely with “spinning reserve” held by base-load gas and coal thermal plants – which can be added to the grid in seconds – and hydro generation, which can be called upon to start generating within minutes (see our post here).
Maintaining “voltage stability” and “phase” is done on a much faster time scale – a few cycles (ie Hz) or less. The extra power needed in this respect is already in the grid: it then becomes a matter of matching positive and negative voltage balances that simultaneously exist within the grid to maintain equilibrium throughout the grid as a whole. This is done – in simple terms – by grid managers “pushing” power around the grid using transformers, switching gear and circuit breakers.
In Australia, supplying the power used to maintain “voltage” and “phase” stability largely comes from hydro power. That power is not “sold” to retail customers, but is simply absorbed by the grid to keep it stable (ie to prevent blackouts, which would otherwise occur). In other words, a substantial volume of the power generated and dispatched to the grid is used up within it and never sees a kettle or a light globe. However, because it is critical to grid stability, generators supplying power for that purpose charge grid operators a premium price for it. The introduction of substantial – but wildly fluctuating – volumes of intermittent wind power has made the task of maintaining grid stability more difficult; and requires an even greater volume of conventional power to do so.
With 2,660 MW of installed (nameplate) wind power capacity connected to the Eastern Grid, the task of grid managers in trying to balance the grid has become a nightmare – the fluctuations in wind power output vary enormously, second by second, minute by minute and hour by hour – and bring with it a serious risk of widespread blackouts (see our post here).
On the opposite side of each and every one of those utterly unpredictable fluctuations in wind power output, there has to be an equal amount of power already within the grid to compensate. If not, the grid collapses. Despite necessitating the provision of a substantial volume of additional power from conventional sources (dispatched to the grid for no other purpose than balancing it) wind power outfits pay nothing towards that cost.
In respect of all of the above – where wind power outfits escape Scott free – power consumers are ultimately lumbered with the entire cost of providing preferential network distribution for wind power – as well as paying for the additional power generated (and essential) to maintain a balanced grid – through high and rising power bills.
In the US, conventional generators and grid operators have just cottoned on to the manifest unfairness in having their customers pay for wind power’s “free lunch”.
Here’s the Denver Business Journal on one effort to make the freeloaders pay.
Xcel asks federal regulators to ensure wind power pays its own way
Denver Business Journal
Cathy Proctor
23 May 2014
As wind energy grows as a power source in Colorado, Xcel Energy Inc. is asking federal regulators for permission to change the way it charges other utilities that use Xcel’s transmission lines to move their wind-based power to their customers.
Xcel wants the utilities to pay for its costs associated with having supplies of reserve power ready to go in case the wind suddenly dies, said Terri Eaton, Xcel’s director of federal regulatory and compliance efforts.
Currently, those costs are paid by Xcel’s business and residential customers, Eaton said.
If the transmission lines customers can supply their own back-up power supplies, they wouldn’t be charged under the proposed rates, she said.
Readily available, back-up power supplies are critical to keep the transmission grid in balance and avoid blackouts that can occur when a big source of power suddenly disappears, Eaton said.
Under the proposal Xcel filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on May 15, the new rates would bring in about $727,000 a year, according to the filing.
The new rates, if approved, would become effective Jan. 1, 2015.
“What we’re trying to do is to have the costs we’re now paying to integrate wind on our system allocated to all the parties who have wind on our system — as well as those who will add wind on our system in the future,” Eaton said.
While FERC has discussed the challenges with adding wind to the nation’s grid, Xcel’s filing is the first to ask for a special charge, or tariff, to pay for backup power supplies in case the wind suddenly dies, Eaton said.
“We’ve seen some dramatic wind fall-offs in really short periods of time,” Eaton said.
Xcel has already experienced such falls offs, when “several hundreds of megawatts of wind” drops dramatically — and swiftly — due to changes in the wind, she said.
“Sometimes the wind is just howling, and an hour later the wind has calmed — and it’s in those circumstances that we need to have reserves available to pick up the load,” Eaton said.
In such cases, backup power supplies typically come from natural gas-fueled power plants, she said.
If FERC approves the new charges, the rates only would be applicable to Xcel’s power lines in Colorado, she said.
Xcel worked hard with representatives of the wind industry to draft its proposed rates, said Michael Goggin, director of research for the American Wind Energy Association, an industry trade group.
“We plan on taking a close look at the filing to ensure that Xcel’s proposal is consistent with FERC precedent and cost allocation rules,” Goggin said.
“It’s important that all energy sources be treated fairly, particularly because ratepayers pick up the tab for the integration cost of accommodating the abrupt failures of conventional power plants,” he said.
Xcel’s Colorado transmission lines currently carry about 25 megawatts of wind power owned by other utilities, specifically the Platte River Power Authority and the Arkansas River Power Authority, Eaton said.
It’s not a big amount, but the total is expected to grow as other rural cooperatives and city-owned utilities add wind farms to their power portfolios and need to use Xcel’s transmission lines to move the power to their customers, Eaton said.
Xcel currently has about 2,200 megawatts of its own wind power moving across its transmission lines in Colorado, and expects to add about 450 megawatts of wind power by 2018.
Rural cooperatives must get 20 percent of their power supplies from renewable energy by 2020 under a controversial 2013 bill, Senate Bill 252, that Gov. John Hickenlooper signed into law in June 2013.
Under the proposal, the new rates would raise transmission costs for the Arkansas River Power Authority by $105,144 a year, while the Platte River Power Authority’s rates would rise an estimated $326,447 per year, according to Xcel.
Eaton stressed that the proposal doesn’t mean Xcel is hostile toward wind energy, or renewable power.
“This isn’t a money maker for the company,” Eaton said.
Lee Boughey, a spokesman for Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, said the association doesn’t currently send the its wind power over Xcel’s transmission lines, but understands Xcel’s concerns.
Tri-State supplies power to 18 member electric cooperatives in Colorado, which are affected by the new renewable energy goal, in addition to serving customers in Nebraska, Wyoming and New Mexico.
“As more intermittent resources are added in the region, we understand the need to address the higher costs of integrating and balancing power,” Boughey said.
“It’s important that costs be addressed in a transparent fashion,” he added.
Denver Business Journal
The wind industry and its parasites are quick to trumpet anything that looks remotely like a “benefit” purportedly attached to wind power; but have, so far, avoided being called to account for the true and hidden costs of wind power generation – just like those detailed above.
STT is aware of several submissions to the RET Review Panel from Australia’s leading energy market economists that specifically address these issues.
The Panel has made it plain that they are principally concerned “with the cost impacts of renewable energy in the electricity sector” – so there’ll no place for the wind industry to hide this time around (see our post here).
Forcing power consumers to pay for the wind industry’s giant “free lunch” is just another reason why the mandatory RET simply has to be scrapped now.
Listen Carefully…. “Unnecessary Jobs will be Eliminated through Attrition!”
Renewable Energy Targets are Ridiculous! It’s a Scam!!
Abolish Renewable Energy Targets, Now
The Australian government is holding an unnecessary enquiry into whether to abolish the Renewable Energy Target (RET), which mandates that 20% of Australian electricity must come from renewable sources by 2020.
There is only one “renewable” energy source that makes sense for grid power in Australia — hydro-power. But all the good hydro dam sites are either already equipped, or have been sterilized by the same people who demand that we use renewable energy.
Geothermal energy works, but Australia’s geology does not have many attractive geothermal sites. Nuclear is also “emissions free” but it is politically prohibited. And we have zero chance of getting approvals to clear-fell forests of timber for burning as biomass.
Which leaves wind and solar. Neither can ever produce continuous power at their “rated” capacity. They are intermittent energy producers. The sun sets every day and there are cloudy days, stormy days and windless days. No amount of “research” will change these laws of nature.
Wind and solar power can be useful in some situations such as remote locations, but when connected to the grid they are energy cripples that can only exist on crutches supplied by reliable power plants using hydro, coal, or gas, and subsidized by consumers or tax payers.
The costly RET can have no measurable effect on global warming. It imposes needless costs on poorly utilized backup facilities, and increases transmission costs, network instability, capital destruction and operating losses for existing generators. Germany has already showed how to create renewable energy chaos — let’s not follow their sad example.
This enquiry is an excuse for inaction and delay. The minister could have dictated the answer to his secretary before smoko one morning: “If we are serious about providing Australian industry and consumers with economical reliable electricity, we must abolish the RET now.”
And if the green Senate refuses to abolish the act, the minister can use his regulatory powers to change the renewables target from 20% to 2%, and the time limit from 2020 to 2120.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/abolish_renewable_energy_targets_now.html at May 26, 2014 – 09:10:50 PM CDT
Lawyers Ask for Action, on Macarthur Wind Farm Noise!
Law firm asks Moyne council to act on Macarthur wind farm noise
A LAW firm representing residents living near the Macarthur wind farm has called on Moyne Shire to step in and order the facility to stop operating at nights.
The Piper Alderman firm says the council has an obligation to take action after it received 20 official complaints from residents about noise coming from AGL’s 140-turbine wind farm last year.
The council has begun investigating the nuisance complaints under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, which the lawyers have labelled “a serious risk to public health”.
They say their clients are farmers and graziers and include families with young children who do not have the individual means to prosecute a private claim of nuisance against a company with the resources of AGL.
“Our clients consider that the council has a duty, not only to remedy the nuisance detailed in the notifications in accordance with the act, but also a duty of common law to protect our clients from reasonably-foreseeable harm,” the firm said in a letter to the council.
It suggested a prohibition notice could be issued to prevent AGL from operating the wind farm at night, avoiding the “serious and adverse consequences” of sleep disturbance and deprivation suffered by the 20 clients and their 16 children.
Lawyers also urged the council to write to Health Minister David Davis, requesting a health-impact assessment and a public inquiry into the wind farm.
The shire’s energy and major projects co-ordinator Russell Guest said council had to ensure the wind farm complied with noise standards set out in the original planning permit.
Councils were being left to resolve complex and little understood matters relating to wind farms, he said.
In a report to council, Mr Guest recommends it consider the request to support a health-impact assessment once it finishes investigating the noise complaints.
Russians Not Dumb Enough to Pay Twice as Much Money, for a Small Fraction of the Energy!
Crimean Solar, Wind Plants Not Operating Since Russia Annexation
Marc Roca, Bloomberg
May 26, 2014
LONDON — Solar and wind power plants in Crimea that have not been operating since the region voted to join Russia two months ago face an uncertain future.
Ukraine’s state-owned utility Energorynok canceled all power purchase agreements and stopped buying electricity from Russia’s newest republic after the March annexation, according to the region’s largestsolar developer Activ Solar GmbH. All solar, wind and traditional power plants were forced to suspend operations, said Hans Lang, a spokesman.
Until succession, Crimea imported 80 percent of its power and about as much water via a canal from Ukraine, given the region by the Soviets in 1954. Russia is now working to ensure Crimea’s 2 million residents have an uninterrupted power supply and most of its gas and water needs are satisfied while drafting a long-term electricity plan for the peninsula.
Activ manages most of Crimea’s solar plants, which covered almost 7 percent of its power demand. The company operated four solar parks there with almost 300 megawatts, including two of world’s largest. The region also has seven wind farms with almost 70 megawatts and 118 megawatts in thermal power plants, according to the investment portal of the Republic of Crimea.
Vladimir Konstantinov, speaker of the Crimean parliment, said talks on solar will be clearer after the Ukraine elections on Sunday. Negotiations have been made more difficult due to political instability in Kiev, he said.
Rate Change
The rates won’t be what producers were getting under ousted Ukraine President Viktor Yanykovych as with Russia, Konstantinov added.
The solar parks face a more uncertain future because they earned Europe’s highest feed-in tariffs of about 10 times local wholesale power prices, and its owners have never been disclosed. Crimea’s new government is looking into the plants because it considers them a vehicle used to enrich former Ukraine politicians, according to the Interfax news agency.
Activ, which sold the plants to investors, considers the allegations “groundless” and said the company abides by all regulatory requirements wherever it works, Lang said by e-mail.
The company, which in March warned that its work in Ukraine was being disrupted by unrest, has stopped all development work in Crimea amid uncertainty about current and future purchase agreements, according to Lang.
Activ is analyzing all possibilities for a workable solution to the energy standstill but will “refrain from speculating about what will happen next in terms of energy policy in the region,” he said.
Russia’s energy ministry has no comment on the issue, spokeswoman Olga Golant said by phone.
Copyright 2014 Bloomberg
Lead image: Crimea map via Shutterstock
Climate Alarmists Do NOT Want Anyone Exposing the Truth!
Dr. Bengtsson confronts warming bias & bullies
Which is more troubling, that Dr. Lennart Bengtsson was bullied and slandered, or that the warming crowd suppressed publication of his conclusion that climate computer models are inaccurate? If temperature observations show climate sensitivity to CO2 to be far less than is programmed into the models, does this not demand scientific publication?
After having his research suppressed and his character attacked, Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, former Director of the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, had this to say:
As a result of chaos theory, weather and climate cannot be predicted, and how future climate will turn out will not be known until future is upon us.
During the last weeks there has been a lot of speculation regarding my views and my scientific standpoint on climate research. I have never really sought publicity and it was with a great deal of reluctance that I began writing articles for public media. A large part of my unwillingness to partake in public debate is connected to my friend Sven Öhman, a linguist who wrote about semantics and not least about the difficulties specialists run into when attempting to communicate with the public. Words and concepts have different meanings and are interpreted differently depending on one’s background and knowledge.
Sometimes such misunderstanding can be disastrous.
This is also true for concepts such as climate and climate forecasts. Climate is nothing but the sum of all weather events during some representative period of time. The length of this period cannot be strictly specified, but ought to encompass at least 100 years.
Nonetheless, for practical purposes meteorologists have used 30 years. For this reason alone it can be hard to determine whether the climate is changing or not, as data series that are both long enough and homogenous are often lacking. An inspection of the weather in Uppsala since 1722 exemplifies this. Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks. For this reason, climate calculations are uncertain even if all model equations would be perfect.
Despite all these issues, climate research has progressed greatly, above all through new revolutionary observations from space, such as the possibility to measure both volume and mass of the oceans. Temperature and water vapor content of the atmosphere are measured by occultation with GPS satellites. Our knowledge of earlier climate has increased substantially.
It is not surprising that the public is impressed by this and that this trust transfers to climate forecasts and the possibility to predict the earth’s future climate. That all this occurs within a context of international cooperation under the supervision of the UN, and with an apparent unity among the scientists involved has created a robust confidence in IPCC’s climate simulations, in Sweden not the least. SMHI’s [Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute] down-scaled climate simulations for 100 years are impressive and show in detail and with splendid graphics how the climate will turn out both in Östergötland [the Swedish province of East Gothland] and in Västerbotten [West Bothnia].
This is invaluable for municipality climate experts and planners who are working feverishly to avoid future floods and forest fires. The public is in good hands in the benevolent society.
Unfortunately, things are not as splendid as they seem. As a result of chaos theory, weather and climate cannot be predicted, and how future climate will turn out will not be known until future is upon us. It would not help even if we knew the exact amount of greenhouse gases. Add to this the uncertainty about the future of the world. This should be clear to anyone, simply by moving back in time and contemplating what has unfolded from that viewpoint. As Daniel Boorstin put it: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge”.
I’m concerned that this is the problem of the present, and the real reason for me to choose to partake in the climate debate over the last couple of years. I don’t think anyone disputes that I have been highly critical of those who completely reject the effects of greenhouse gases on the earth’s climate. This is however not the problem, but rather how much, how soon and to what extent “climate change” will happen. There is no 97% consensus about this, and even less concerning how weather and climate will turn out in Västerbotten [West Bothnia] in 80 years. This is why it unfortunately is misleading of SMHI to show their beautiful maps, because people may actually believe that this is the way the climate will turn out. The climate scientists of SMHI know this, of course, but for the users this is not clear. My colleague in Hamburg, Guy Brasseur, told me the other day that an insignificant change on about 70 km height in a climate model’s mesosphere, made the weather systems relocate from north Germany to the Alps, consequently with radical regional climate change as a result.
Even more alarming is the tendency of giving people the impression that weather events are becoming more extreme, and that this has actually already occurred. Apart from a possible increase in precipitation and a possible intensification of tropical hurricanes that has not yet been detected, there are no indications of extreme weather in the model simulations, and even less so in current observations.
This has convincingly been demonstrated and also held up by the IPCC. Damages are increasing, as are damages from earth quakes, but this due to the growing economy. It is also important to stress that injuries suffered by humans during extreme weather has decreased substantially due to better weather forecasts.
What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. Even extremely cold weather, as this year’s winter in north Eastern USA and Canada, is regarded as a consequence of the greenhouse effect.
Were Karl Popper alive today we would certainly have met with fierce critique of this behavior. It is also demonstrated in journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments, such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic. My colleagues and I have been met with scant understanding when trying to point out that observations indicate lower climate sensitivity than model calculations indicate. Such behavior may not even be intentional but rather attributed to an effect that my colleague Hans von Storch calls a social construct.
That I have taken a stand trying to put the climate debate onto new tracks has resulted in rather violent protests. I have not only been labeled a sceptic but even a denier, and faced harsh criticism from colleagues. Even contemplating my connections with GWPF was deemed unheard of and scandalous.
I find it difficult to believe that the prominent Jewish scientists in the GWPF council appreciate being labeled deniers. The low-point is probably having been labeled “world criminal” by a representative of the English wind power-industry. I want to stress that I am a sworn enemy of the social construction of natural science that has garnered so much traction in the last years. For example, German scientists have attempted to launch what they call “good” science to ensure that natural science shouldn’t be driven by what they view as anti-social curiosity-research by researching things that might not be “good”.
Einstein’s “anti-social behavior”, when he besides his responsible work as a patent office clerk in Bern also researched on the theory of relativity and the photoelectric effect, was of course reprehensible, and to do this during work-time! Even current labor unions would have strongly condemned this.
____________
http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-my-view-on-climate-research/
The Truth is….Wind Turbines are NOT Good for our Environment!
What’s the footprint of a Wind Turbine? Ask Howard Hayden
The green thugs claim that Wind Tubines have a positive impact on the enviornment. Birds and Bats might disagree–but there’s more, courtesy of Howard Hayden
Howard is emeritus prof of physics at U Conn. I asked him if I could put up his essay on developments related to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Warming, now called climate disruption (apparently carbon dioxide is now a toxic air pollutant, and we mammals are just like diesel trucks, spewing evil CO2).
An item that deserves attention for Howard Hayden’s last newsletter is his short essay on the imprint and substructure of a typical 2.5 Mega Watt wind turbine, much like the wind turbines that were spread out over Mills County, Texas, in the past year–100 turbines on the ridge next to the road I travel to go to Fort Hood to work.
100 wind turbines built for more than 100 million dollars and they would produce about one-third of their rated capacity over a year, so they would produce about 90 Megawatts but require on-line backup for windless days.
However they make it because of mandated alternative energy portfolios in Texas, tax credits and subsidies. Farmers and ranchers are easy targets for the lease payments or royalties, whatever the arrangements are.
10 miles of open country spoiled by 300 foot bird and bat Cuisinarts, sitting on a prominent 50-100 foot ridge. Ruins the vista for hunters and retirees, and anyone who loves the country, pockmarks the land with access roads and transmission lines, and the land use is 500 acres at about 5 acres per fan. Electricity output is, at best, one tenth of a typical 1000 Mega watt coal plant that is on-line all the time and reliable, and takes about 100 acres and can be built where the grid is readily accessible and where the plant is not a sore on the horizon.
However, the power lines and the scarred up ranch land is factor–and the actual site is another matter, ranch land is not so valuable as farmland for ag production, and in Texas the fans are on ridges in pastureland–imagine when they site them in Mid Western row and field crop farmland.
When installed the fans have to have a stout substructure.
Howard explains.
The Energy Advocate
A monthly newsletter promoting energy and technology
May 2014 (Vol. 18, No. 10) P.O. Box 7609, Pueblo West, CO 81007 Copyright © by The Energy Advocate
STEM Notes: Wind Power
Wind turbines exert considerable leverage (a.k.a. torque, lever-arm length multiplied by force) on the base of the structure. The force is never published, but it is easy to calculate: Power = force times velocity. For a 2.5-MW wind machine in Cashton Greens Wind Farm in Wisconsin, at 25 m/s wind speed (above which the machine must be turned off) 2.5 106 W 25m/s = 100,000 newtons ( 22,500 pounds). The tower height is 117 meters (385 ft).
For this case wind turbine’s torque on the ground is equivalent to the weight of a large school bus at the end of a plank the length of a football field from field-level spectator to field-level spectator. Accordingly, the base of the structure must be very substantial.
The circular part of the structure shown in the Cashton Greens picture will be the only part that shows after the rest has been covered with dirt, and it will contain 63 metric tons of concrete; the rest of the base will contain 570 metric tons. The base will contain 41 metric tons of rebar.
Dunn note: let’s see, what’s the carbon imprint of making and installing all that concrete? How about the carbon imprint of building a fan and tower? We don’t start the first day with a 0 imprint, do we and they have to be linked to a reliable source of energy–so what’s the benefit except to the gamers playing the tax credits and the mandates, and the subsidies. Warren Buffett recently stated that wind power goes nowhere without the tax credits so i have to look at 100 ugly fans and wonder how many birds are going to killed for what? So anxious greenies and gamers can do their projects?
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 