A wind turbine which cost the taxpayer ¬£48,000 and generated an average of just ¬£5 worth of electricity per month, is being removed.
It was put up at the Welsh government’s Aberystwyth office when it opened in 2009 as part of a range of environmentally-friendly features.
But ministers came under fire last year over its output and now it has gone.
They say the turbine’s manufacturer went into liquidation and they were not likely to find someone to maintain it.
Last year, the Welsh government confirmed in a response to a Freedom of Information request that between January 2012 and July 2013 the turbine generated 585 kilowatt hours of energy (kWh) – an average of 33 kWh per month.
Taking 16p as an estimate for the price of electricity per kWh in the consumer market, that worked out at a value of ¬£5.28 per month.
At that rate it would have taken hundreds of years for the turbine to offset its cost. ¬† Read more »
Our favorite Green Goddess appeared yesterday on the Good Morning show trying to convince people to install solar panels.
Quite clearly she has been inhaling too many baking soda fumes lately, along with whoever it is at TVNZ that allows her on the show in the first place.
I’ve taken some quotes from her interview yesterday which do not make ANY sense.
“Couples as they get older and they’re heading towards retirement, might have a little bit of money stashed away. ¬† They spend $10,000 on a conservatory, or an overseas trip, or a swimming pool. None of these have a return. Whereas solar power, you get a return on it. ¬† It takes about six years to pay for itself and then you’re in your retirement and you’re not paying for any power.”
Wendyl’s ideas, as usual, don’t quite add up here – even the Green Party Solar scheme says that a $10,000 system will produce $1000 worth of power per year and will be financed over 15 years.
“Your energy supplier will pay you for the power that you feed back in the grid. ¬†So on a big sunny day, you’ve got more than you need, it goes back into the supplier and¬†they pay you, not much actually, ‘cos its not really in their interest. ¬† And then at night, if you need a bit extra you can take it back so it ends up¬†pretty much breaking even”
They don’t pay much, you pay more and then you break even? ¬† Now I’m really confused. ¬†Didn’t you just say we weren’t paying for any power in our retirement?
“The thing you have to think about is increasingly we’re still using coal throughout the world to make electricity. ¬†54% of the power in the world is made from coal. ¬† So if you’re worried about spending $10,000, you’re also doing a really good thing for the planet because its free energy”
There are advantages to being a video guy rather than an ink-stained wretch. James O‚ÄôKeefe is currently in Cannes, where he is premiering his latest video prank. O‚ÄôKeefe‚Äôs targets are Josh and Rebecca Tickell, producers of environmental documentaries including ‚ÄúFuel.‚ÄĚ Ed Begley Jr. and (former?) actress Mariel Hemingway appear, but are mostly along for the ride. And there isn‚Äôt actually much video; it‚Äôs mostly recorded conversations.¬† Read more »
The leftwing around the world are the most undemocratic organisations to be found. You wither conform or you shut up. They constantly try to silence opponents using any means possible.
Now they are turning on their own, attempting to bully and silence George Monbiot.
Green campaigners¬†have offered a ¬£100 reward for the arrest of environmental activist and journalist George Monbiot for “crimes against the environment and humanity.”
His support of nuclear power has earned the wrath of an anti-nuclear campaign group in the Lake District which is trying to have him arrested for his “criminal irresponsibility.”
Oh dear. Where should our sympathies lie?
On the one hand it’s one of those¬†Judaean People’s Front v People’s Front of Judaeafactional squabbles that the environmental hard-left does so well and which really we should applaud and relish in a delicious, “if only they could both lose”¬†Schadenfreudekind of way. ¬† Read more »
Uh oh…more bad news for those proponents of biofuels…the so-called green fuels are actually worse for the environment.
Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration’s conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.
A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline.
While biofuels are better in the long run, the study says they won’t meet a standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuel.
The conclusions deal a blow to what are known as cellulosic biofuels, which have received more than a billion dollars in federal support but have struggled to meet volume targets mandated by law. About half of the initial market in cellulosics is expected to be derived from corn residue.
I wonder if Gareth Hughes would care to comment on this news.
To be consistent with the MSM breathlessly reporting all doomsday IPCC predictions (most of which never eventuate) will we see headlines of fracking saving the environment and insightful comment from global warmists backing the IPCC findings ?
I think probably not.
Climate¬†scientists have backed Britain‚Äôs shale gas revolution ‚Äď saying it could help to slow¬† global warming.
The world‚Äôs leading experts on climate change say fracking will cut greenhouse gas emissions and should be made central to the country‚Äôs energy production.
It will help the UK move away from ‚Äėdirty‚Äô coal and contribute to saving the environment, according to a report by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The report says it is ‚Äėquite clear‚Äô that fracking is ‚Äėvery consistent with low-carbon development‚Äô and the technology could ‚Äėsignificantly‚Äô reduce emissions.
The unexpected endorsement from 235 eminent United Nations scientists and economists will be a welcome boost to David Cameron, who is a keen advocate of the new technology.
It is also a blow to green activists, who seek cuts in greenhouse gas emissions but are concerned about the effects of fracking.¬† Read more »
David Cunliffe’s messaging on power prices is as wonky as everything else he does.
On Facebook on April 8 he stated that Labour would be bringing prices down.
That is pretty clear…David Cunliffe says Labour will bring down power prices.¬† Read more »
David Cameron is planning on going into the election promising to rid the countryside of appalling bird shredders.
Top stuff, and given they are hopeless at actually providing power will be a massive blessing as their subsidised uselessness is eradicated.
David Cameron wants to go into the next election pledging to ‚Äúrid‚ÄĚ the countryside of onshore wind farms, a source close to the Prime Minister has said.
Mr Cameron wants to toughen planning laws and tear up subsidy rules to make current turbines financially unviable ‚Äď allowing the Government to ‚Äúeradicate‚ÄĚ turbines, the source said.¬† Read more »
The German economy is almost on its knees as a result of green energy policies that are failing to deliver.
Germany is in the middle of one of the most audacious and ambitious experiments a major industrial economy has ever attempted: To swear off nuclear power and run Europe’s largest economy essentially on wind and solar power.
There’s just one problem — it’s not really working.
The energy transformation, known as “Energiewende,” was meant to give Germany an energy sector that would be cleaner and more competitive, fueling an export-driven economy and helping to slash greenhouse-gas emissions. On that count, the policy has floundered: German emissions are¬†rising, not falling, because the country is burning increasing amounts of dirty coal. And electricity costs, already high, have kept¬†rising, making life difficult for small and medium-sized businesses that compete against rivals with cheaper energy.¬† Read more »