This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 1.8 million hits and blog is updated regularly most weeks.
Tuesday 29 March 2022
WIND ENERGY RUSH IS MADNESS, SAYS MATT RIDLEY
The big article in the Daily Mail gives a good summary of reasons why wind energy is not a viable option. Time the government did the sensible thing and started to extract more of our own gas and oil.
Fossil fuels are no longer energy security. The idea you are calling for more drilling is that fossil fuels are an insecure source of energy. With renewable energy, you don't depend on drilling for fossil fuels and delivering to get to you.
They despoil our glorious countryside,
When the power grid first went in, the wires above ground were everywhere changing the looks of the surrounding area. A visible wind turbine is so much better than invisible co2.
add £6 billion a year to our household bills and are arguably the most inefficient solution to our energy crisis. So why is the Government planning to make it even easier to build them?
Dependency on fossil fuels is energy insecurity and it is also adding to global warming. This is a collective human situation that requires we work together on this.
Four per cent of total primary demand for energy was supplied by wind power Wind industry has been fattened on subsidies of more than £6billion a year
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60917445 Wind and solar generated 10% of global electricity for the first time in 2021, a new analysis shows.
Turbines to be given easier planning process ride than housing or gas drilling
Four per cent of total primary demand for energy was supplied by wind power
There are different ways at looking at the RE contribution to the UK energy grid. Obviously the author chose to make RE look insignificant as possible. In reality, GB is doing great compared to many other countries in the world. WIth fossil fuel insecurity in the world exacerbated by Russia, renewable energy is a much more secure energy source in that no one can take it away from you. Renewable energy will not be so vulnerable to market panic forces.
43% The contribution made by renewables to UK power generation has more than doubled since 2014. Renewables (mainly wind, solar, biomass, hydro) accounted for 43% of the UK's 312 TWh of domestic power generation in 2020.Oct 4, 2021
UK targets power from 100% renewable sources by 2035https://www.spglobal.com › latest-n
That’s right, all those vast wind farms in the North Sea, or disfiguring the hills of Wales and Scotland, give us little more than one-thirtieth of the energy we need to light and heat our homes, power our businesses or move our cars and trains.
As though fossil fuels are without harm? Hardly! Fossil fuel harm is very well spelled out in the IPPC publications. Natural gas will be on the hit list in shich homes will be able to use heat pumps to heat and cool their homes. This is just the beginning of the RE revolution.
And once turbines are up and running, they’re not reliable.
It is the old canard of the RE doubters. GB will build a great deal of energy storage. I have already discussed with you about cheaper energy storage. There is not a fossil fuel that can be burned that doesn't harm our climate. It must be eliminated as an energy source.
As I write this article in still, fine spring weather, millions of tonnes of turbines stand largely idle, generating just 3 per cent of our electricity.
Coal contributes 5 per cent.
This article is just in the least bit honest about the total picture of RE. RE outproduces coal and gas together. This is about the 100% goal of no pollution that gives the world global warming. That means fossil fuels can no longer be used at some point in the future.
The thinktank behind the report, Ember, revealed that renewable energy generated by wind, sunlight, water and wood made up 42% of the UK's electricity last year compared with 41% generated from gas and coal plants together.Jan 27, 2021
UK electricity from renewables outpaces gas and coal powerhttps://www.theguardian.com › environment › jan ›
The wind turbines are also near impossible to recycle, with the rare earth metals such as neodymium that are vital for the magnets inside most of their generators coming from polluted mines in China.
Every bit of metal in the turbine can be recycled. There is such a thing as repowering a wind field. Meaning the towers and base are still good and the equipment is replaced at lower cost than before producing even more energy than before from technological improvements.
In terms of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, wind and solar energy provide a better greenhouse gas balance than fossil-based technologies since they don’t require additional energy for production and transport, he said.
During the lifetime of a wind turbine there is zero emissions from a turbine and free wind. Not only is wind zero emissions it is cheaper electricity since there is no transportation of the energy as fossil fuels require to even use them.
Its author, physicist Thomas Linnemann, wrote: ‘Wind power from a European perspective always will require practically 100 per cent back-up systems.’
The false assertion is that you have to have 100% spinning reserve to make a renewable energy reliable. There already is a spinning reserve for all the steam driven turbines now. ANy turbine can go down at any time. With grid storage there will be less and less need for spinning reserve in the future saving money on fossil fuel burning. Also Britain is tied into Europe to use their excess power when needed. And vice versa, GB will provide for them in their lean times.
Analysis of audited accounts suggests that many wind farms will not work for much more than 15 years before the cost of maintaining the machine eats into income and it has to be scrapped and replaced.
Try 25 years. All electrical generation requires maintenance. Coal employs lots of pipe fitters since burning coal is so corrosive to the pipes carry water for steam generators. Ntural gas cuts down on the need for pipe fitters since it is so much less corrosion when it burns.
A gas turbine on the other hand can easily last 30 or 40 years.
Gas turbines are at very high risk of stranded assets investment. In 30 years, they will not even be needed. If the gas turbine is going to the scrap heap anyway in 20 years, this gives investors of capital pause. It would be better off to get a fast acting storage system that will be needed for its longer life than natural gas.
The clear science on this is that co2 is an anathema to life on earth when it increases in the atmosphere. There is zero discussion on this which Matt Ridley is famous for doubt on climate change. Scientific consensus based in evidence says co2 from humans is bad news.
Renewable energy chief: climate goals need 'radical action' - ABC News ABC News The head of the International Renewable Energy Agency says “radical action” is needed to shift away from fossil fuels and ensure global warming ... Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant
Renewable energy chief: climate goals need 'radical action' | AP News AP News BERLIN (AP) — The world needs to take “radical action” to shift away from fossil fuels and ensure global warming doesn't pass dangerous thresholds ... Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant
'Radical Action' Needed to Hit Climate Goals | Time TIME The International Renewable Energy Agency calls for $5.7 trillion in annual clean energy investment this decade to tackle climate change. Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant
Renewable energy chief: climate goals need 'radical action' | Star Tribune Star Tribune The world needs to take "radical action" to shift away from fossil fuels and ensure global warming doesn't pass dangerous thresholds, ... Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant
Renewable energy agency head says only 'radical action' will accomplish transition | TheHill TheHill To achieve the 1.5-degree target, the goal set out by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, renewable energy capacity must ...
My goodness, you have been busy! I don't know where to start with a rebuttal. We can only wait and see how things turn out. Will the government stick with its plan to build more and more wind turbines? Despite what they say about them producing low cost electricity, I suspect they know that in reality the subsidies mean that it is, in fact, a lot dearer than they admit. The problem is that politicians have a short time in office and so they usually do the easiest thing to remain popular by the time of the next election. As soon as they meet strong resistance from the public they buckle. I think they will meet a lot of resistance when the massive energy bills start arriving, and they will need to find a quick fix. Cutting the subsidies is the obvious answer. Then we will see how cheap renewable energy really is!
Figures seen by Sky News suggest that the cost of producing energy from wind will be less than half the cost from gas this year, falling to a quarter in 2023. https://news.sky.com/story/will-a-move-to-renewables-save-us-money-on-our-energy-bills-12579135?fbclid=IwAR0P65CQyoO4hMGG1_jt9dr24BTY5TvY6bvEYwQiOMqCGL6pbWX_cqIp1ss
Wind Turbines, these are The Ultimate in Embedded Costs and Environmental Destruction. Each one weighs about 1,688 tons (equivalent to 23 houses) and they contain 1,300 tons of concrete and 295 tons of steel for the masts (Concrete and Steel = 15% Global CO2). 3.5 tons of copper, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass Then there are the rare earth minerals . . . 800 lbs. of neodymium-boron per turbine, praseodymium, and dysprosium. The leaching into the environment from tailings ponds, the radiation released into the environment and the mining of these minerals are all Embedded Costs. Where are all the calculations for all of these in The Environmental reports? Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last about 15 to 20 years, then, it must be replaced. Oh, we cannot recycle used blades yet either! That is why we see them lying on the ground at wind farms after they have been replaced. What about the coal burned and electricity used at all the production facilities processing these essential components and the CO2 generated during their production? Somehow is this ‘Green Magic’ without pollution, because it will be used to produce Green Energy? Not likely! It all gets brushed under the ‘Big Green Rug’ and seems irrelevant because ‘It’s for a Good Cause’ . . . Absolutely NOT !!
From . . . https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction
Its all about the co2. Lifetime of a coal power plant emits many many times the co2 that it takes to build a wind turbine and plant it on land or in the ocean. CO2 is the reason we humans have warmed the earth. Its time to invest in RE and disinvest in fossil fuels.
Madness of our worship of wind:
ReplyDeleteFossil fuels are no longer energy security. The idea you are calling for more drilling is that fossil fuels are an insecure source of energy. With renewable energy, you don't depend on drilling for fossil fuels and delivering to get to you.
They despoil our glorious countryside,
When the power grid first went in, the wires above ground were everywhere changing the looks of the surrounding area. A visible wind turbine is so much better than invisible co2.
add £6 billion a year to our household bills and are arguably the most inefficient solution to our energy crisis. So why is the Government planning to make it even easier to build them?
Dependency on fossil fuels is energy insecurity and it is also adding to global warming. This is a collective human situation that requires we work together on this.
Four per cent of total primary demand for energy was supplied by wind power
Wind industry has been fattened on subsidies of more than £6billion a year
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60917445
Wind and solar generated 10% of global electricity for the first time in 2021, a new analysis shows.
Turbines to be given easier planning process ride than housing or gas drilling
Four per cent of total primary demand for energy was supplied by wind power
ReplyDeleteThere are different ways at looking at the RE contribution to the UK energy grid. Obviously the author chose to make RE look insignificant as possible. In reality, GB is doing great compared to many other countries in the world. WIth fossil fuel insecurity in the world exacerbated by Russia, renewable energy is a much more secure energy source in that no one can take it away from you. Renewable energy will not be so vulnerable to market panic forces.
43%
The contribution made by renewables to UK power generation has more than doubled since 2014. Renewables (mainly wind, solar, biomass, hydro) accounted for 43% of the UK's 312 TWh of domestic power generation in 2020.Oct 4, 2021
UK targets power from 100% renewable sources by 2035https://www.spglobal.com › latest-n
That’s right, all those vast wind farms in the North Sea, or disfiguring the hills of Wales and Scotland, give us little more than one-thirtieth of the energy we need to light and heat our homes, power our businesses or move our cars and trains.
ReplyDeleteAs though fossil fuels are without harm? Hardly! Fossil fuel harm is very well spelled out in the IPPC publications. Natural gas will be on the hit list in shich homes will be able to use heat pumps to heat and cool their homes. This is just the beginning of the RE revolution.
And once turbines are up and running, they’re not reliable.
ReplyDeleteIt is the old canard of the RE doubters. GB will build a great deal of energy storage. I have already discussed with you about cheaper energy storage. There is not a fossil fuel that can be burned that doesn't harm our climate. It must be eliminated as an energy source.
As I write this article in still, fine spring weather, millions of tonnes of turbines stand largely idle, generating just 3 per cent of our electricity.
ReplyDeleteCoal contributes 5 per cent.
This article is just in the least bit honest about the total picture of RE. RE outproduces coal and gas together. This is about the 100% goal of no pollution that gives the world global warming. That means fossil fuels can no longer be used at some point in the future.
The thinktank behind the report, Ember, revealed that renewable energy generated by wind, sunlight, water and wood made up 42% of the UK's electricity last year compared with 41% generated from gas and coal plants together.Jan 27, 2021
UK electricity from renewables outpaces gas and coal powerhttps://www.theguardian.com › environment › jan ›
The wind turbines are also near impossible to recycle, with the rare earth metals such as neodymium that are vital for the magnets inside most of their generators coming from polluted mines in China.
ReplyDeleteEvery bit of metal in the turbine can be recycled. There is such a thing as repowering a wind field. Meaning the towers and base are still good and the equipment is replaced at lower cost than before producing even more energy than before from technological improvements.
https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/climate-benefits-of-wind-and-solar-outweigh-hidden-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=In%20terms%20of%20lifecycle%20greenhouse,production%20and%20transport%2C%20he%20said.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, wind and solar energy provide a better greenhouse gas balance than fossil-based technologies since they don’t require additional energy for production and transport, he said.
During the lifetime of a wind turbine there is zero emissions from a turbine and free wind. Not only is wind zero emissions it is cheaper electricity since there is no transportation of the energy as fossil fuels require to even use them.
Its author, physicist Thomas Linnemann, wrote: ‘Wind power from a European perspective always will require practically 100 per cent back-up systems.’
ReplyDeleteThe false assertion is that you have to have 100% spinning reserve to make a renewable energy reliable. There already is a spinning reserve for all the steam driven turbines now. ANy turbine can go down at any time. With grid storage there will be less and less need for spinning reserve in the future saving money on fossil fuel burning. Also Britain is tied into Europe to use their excess power when needed. And vice versa, GB will provide for them in their lean times.
Analysis of audited accounts suggests that many wind farms will not work for much more than 15 years before the cost of maintaining the machine eats into income and it has to be scrapped and replaced.
ReplyDeleteTry 25 years. All electrical generation requires maintenance. Coal employs lots of pipe fitters since burning coal is so corrosive to the pipes carry water for steam generators. Ntural gas cuts down on the need for pipe fitters since it is so much less corrosion when it burns.
A gas turbine on the other hand can easily last 30 or 40 years.
ReplyDeleteGas turbines are at very high risk of stranded assets investment. In 30 years, they will not even be needed. If the gas turbine is going to the scrap heap anyway in 20 years, this gives investors of capital pause. It would be better off to get a fast acting storage system that will be needed for its longer life than natural gas.
The clear science on this is that co2 is an anathema to life on earth when it increases in the atmosphere. There is zero discussion on this which Matt Ridley is famous for doubt on climate change. Scientific consensus based in evidence says co2 from humans is bad news.
ReplyDeleteRenewable energy chief: climate goals need 'radical action' - ABC News
ABC News
The head of the International Renewable Energy Agency says “radical action” is needed to shift away from fossil fuels and ensure global warming ...
Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant
Renewable energy chief: climate goals need 'radical action' | AP News
AP News
BERLIN (AP) — The world needs to take “radical action” to shift away from fossil fuels and ensure global warming doesn't pass dangerous thresholds ...
Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant
'Radical Action' Needed to Hit Climate Goals | Time
TIME
The International Renewable Energy Agency calls for $5.7 trillion in annual clean energy investment this decade to tackle climate change.
Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant
Renewable energy chief: climate goals need 'radical action' | Star Tribune
Star Tribune
The world needs to take "radical action" to shift away from fossil fuels and ensure global warming doesn't pass dangerous thresholds, ...
Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant
Renewable energy agency head says only 'radical action' will accomplish transition | TheHill
TheHill
To achieve the 1.5-degree target, the goal set out by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, renewable energy capacity must ...
I wish were we as forward investing as EU in renewables:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ft.com/content/f4c3f541-4fd3-4ca0-b79b-0fcacd27f851
My goodness, you have been busy! I don't know where to start with a rebuttal. We can only wait and see how things turn out. Will the government stick with its plan to build more and more wind turbines? Despite what they say about them producing low cost electricity, I suspect they know that in reality the subsidies mean that it is, in fact, a lot dearer than they admit. The problem is that politicians have a short time in office and so they usually do the easiest thing to remain popular by the time of the next election. As soon as they meet strong resistance from the public they buckle. I think they will meet a lot of resistance when the massive energy bills start arriving, and they will need to find a quick fix. Cutting the subsidies is the obvious answer. Then we will see how cheap renewable energy really is!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-5-trillion-in-fossil-fuel-subsidies/
ReplyDeleteOver the last 10 years there have been 5 trillion dollars in fossil fuel subsidies.
Figures seen by Sky News suggest that the cost of producing energy from wind will be less than half the cost from gas this year, falling to a quarter in 2023.
ReplyDeletehttps://news.sky.com/story/will-a-move-to-renewables-save-us-money-on-our-energy-bills-12579135?fbclid=IwAR0P65CQyoO4hMGG1_jt9dr24BTY5TvY6bvEYwQiOMqCGL6pbWX_cqIp1ss
Wind Turbines, these are The Ultimate in Embedded Costs and Environmental Destruction. Each one weighs about 1,688 tons (equivalent to 23 houses) and they contain 1,300 tons of concrete and 295 tons of steel for the masts (Concrete and Steel = 15% Global CO2). 3.5 tons of copper, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass Then there are the rare earth minerals . . . 800 lbs. of neodymium-boron per turbine, praseodymium, and dysprosium. The leaching into the environment from tailings ponds, the radiation released into the environment and the mining of these minerals are all Embedded Costs. Where are all the calculations for all of these in The Environmental reports? Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last about 15 to 20 years, then, it must be replaced. Oh, we cannot recycle used blades yet either! That is why we see them lying on the ground at wind farms after they have been replaced. What about the coal burned and electricity used at all the production facilities processing these essential components and the CO2 generated during their production? Somehow is this ‘Green Magic’ without pollution, because it will be used to produce Green Energy? Not likely! It all gets brushed under the ‘Big Green Rug’ and seems irrelevant because ‘It’s for a Good Cause’ . . . Absolutely NOT !!
ReplyDeleteFrom . . . https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction
Its all about the co2. Lifetime of a coal power plant emits many many times the co2 that it takes to build a wind turbine and plant it on land or in the ocean. CO2 is the reason we humans have warmed the earth. Its time to invest in RE and disinvest in fossil fuels.
ReplyDelete