Thomas Paine

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

Friday, October 26, 2012

26 October - Netvibes 1,2

Looking east at the Kewaunee Nuclear Generatin...Looking east at the Kewaunee Nuclear Generating Station near Kewaunee, Wisconsin, USA while traveling on Wisconsin Highway 42. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Kewaunee Pierhead Lighthouse in Kewaunee, ...The Kewaunee Pierhead Lighthouse in Kewaunee, Wisconsin in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin USA. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
NEW ORLEANS, LA - APRIL 20: Sierra Club member...NEW ORLEANS, LA - APRIL 20: Sierra Club member John Koeferl and fellow demonstrators gather to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the BP oil spill on April 20, 2011 in New Orleans, Louisiana. The event, organized by the Sierra Club, drew less than 30 people, highlighting the dearth of environmental activism in a state where oil production is a key employer. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

(99) BPS Research Digest

CloseEdit

Images Search - reflections


The Big Green Lie involves Carbon forcing, renewable energy and peak oil….all proveable LIES. Bio-fuels are documented net energy losers, but the illusion of “free solar energy” from voltaics is less explored. For every ton of pure Polycrystalline Silicon required for the construction of a photovoltaic cell, you produce eight tons of Ammonium Chloridadized Silicon, a toxic carcinogen. No western manufacturer with EPA, OSHA and local land use restrictions can compete with our 401K invested Chinese slave state competition. Add to this Silicon base the necessary Boron and Phosphorus, and you now have a one-time, one-way molecular erosion system producing 1 watt/sq ft at 1.5 volts of Direct Current. This is absolutely useless for any practicle purpose, regardless of the level of subsidy. More on this analysis is provided in “Green Prince of Darkness” at Canada Free Press archive. Because of non-constant input RPM, windmills must also produce DC current, with high line and inverter loses. Remove your green goggles and none of this dogma makes sense. Find and share Truth….it is your duty as an Earthling.

Who’d have thought an intermittent, low density energy source with low kinetic energy, over-scale with all else, built far too close to peoples homes, using massive resources and many vehicle movements, extra infrastructure, expensively running on unsustainable subsidies, unpopular with people who’s houses the depreciate, and views they ruin, impacting the nature and tranquillity of the rural countryside. To stand idle at low wind speeds, and achieve nothing significant other than a political placebo for mistaken beliefs and absurd paper targets that they wont meet, would run into difficulties?

outtheback says:
Depending on how one does the numbers I think that Germany will find that they have to increase the levels of subsidies even further in about 5 years as the solar panels installed pre 2007 will start to reduce their output and will need to be replaced if the output per panel is to be kept up. The earlier wind turbines will come to the end of their life also, if any of those early ones are still going by then.
For anyone to replace their existing panels/turbines the current subsidy will not be enough to be viable as they won’t have made real money yet of the original installation. Although I am sure that on paper you can make it appear so that it looks like one made a euro or two.
The good news is that the manufacturers of panels and turbines are looking forward to those times as it will mean an increase in demand, replacement and new installations. More work for installers also. With a bit of luck we can re-use the vast concrete pads the turbines stand on, so that saves, but then perhaps they won’t pass the stress tests to last another 15 years.
The landfills will become flooded with obsolete panels, old turbine magnets and blades. And possibly millions of cubic meters of concrete.
Ever increasing levels of SF6 in the air, already detectable, as a side effect of panel production and increased mining for rare earth minerals for magnet production leaving an ever increasing number of toxic tailing ponds in their wake.
Is this the green world the “greens” had in mind?

ruralgrubby says:
What continually perplexes me is the disconnect that those who do not have to live with “green” energy developments in their backyards (mostly urban dwellers) are maintaining over the subsidies, which they continually claim we must support as taxpayers As Dr. Ross McKitrick an Environmental policy economist from UofG indicates, “Subsidies create short-term jobs that have to be financed by new taxes on profitable activity, which drives away long-term investment and ends up costing jobs”. Reports out of Denmark, Spain and Italy all show that renewable energy costs jobs in other sectors in large part because electrical energy costs must increase to support those subsidies, but general populace doesn’t seem to understand this and actually see the support for these kinds of schemes as favourable gov’t activity

GeoLurking says:
And now that an intractable morass of bureaucracy has been wound into the energy sector, good luck getting your economy back on track.
The only thing that a politician is good at, is making regulations that require years of study to comprehend. Government by obfuscation. Three Card Monty on a national scale.
Peter Miller says:
We would all like to believe that green renewable energy is a good thing, but it is like socialism: a good idea in theory, which doesn’t work in practice and is hugely expensive to operate and is totally unreliable.
Being see to be green is very trendy amongst many politicians; slowly but surely the realisation is growing that de-industrialisation and widespread poverty as a result of green energy is possibly not such a good idea after all.
Likewise, slowly but surely, the realisation is growing that the highly flawed theory of CAGW is nothing more than the product of the fertile imagination of data manipulators like Hansen and Mann.
This is not a question of left and right, more one of being either stupid and wrong, or correct and sceptical.

David Wells says:
Wind turbines produce AC current which needs to be convered to DC if you want the output to transit long distance without incurring a heavy transmission loss, hence the need for Germany and China where wind turbines are situated a long way from where the power is needed. Germany is intending to build wind turbines upto 150km offshore and they will be in the North but the energy is needed in the South hence Euro 37 billion just tofacilitate the pylons and cables, Joke!! Today UK wind turbines have been producing 3.8% of our electricity demand with 48% coal, 18% nuclear and 26% gas but wind has been 1% to 1.3% for most of the week. At 3.8% we could generate 30% of our electricity demand but we would never know when this would happen and for how long, gas and silo fed coal dust thin wall coal generation can operate from minimal load to full capacity as quickly as gas and has a life of 40 years compared with a wind turbine half life, complete refit at 7 and redundant at 15 or less if off shore. Germany has 13,750 1st generation wind turbines that need to be replaced but there is no money to fund it so they will be left to rot as they expire a blot on the landscape. In the UK we cant plant another 30,000 by 2015 when our coal permits expire so we are in a fix if Germany can burn coal now and is building new coal why is the UK different??
Brian Johnson uk says:
It doesn’t help that our Prime Minister has a Father in Law that has massive investments in Wind Turbine projects. We know how women are the power behind any successful male politician.
David Cameron must bite the bullet and scrap wind power energy generation. I don’t think he has the guts to do it. We have 400 years of coal reserves, massive frakkable gas sources and yet we the taxpayers are still subsidising Cameron’s Father in Law, oh! and also HM the Queen who gets a massive handout each year for owning the UK sea floor out to 12 miles so all those inefficient/expensive off shore wind farms are costing us dear. 38 Million quid to the Queen* each year…….
Green Sand says:
David Wells says:
October 25, 2012 at 12:16 pm
“compared with a wind turbine half life, complete refit at 7 and redundant at 15 or less if off shore.”
“The elephant in the wind turbine”
“Most turbines require significant repairs and even complete overhauls in the 5-7 year range”
“Wind turbine gearboxes have yet to achieve their original design life goals of 20 years.”
http://www.stle.org/assets/news/document/Cover_Story_06-10.pdf



Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment