Wind Farm Scams

On the same day the greens very own super scam has hit the news there is an article in Spectator about Wind Farm Scams:

To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide.

If wind power was going to work, it would have done so by now. The people of Britain see this quite clearly, though politicians are often wilfully deaf. The good news though is that if you look closely, you can see David Cameron’s government coming to its senses about the whole fiasco. The biggest investors in offshore wind — Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Siemens — are starting to worry that the government’s heart is not in wind energy any more. Vestas, which has plans for a factory in Kent, wants reassurance from the Prime Minister that there is the political will to put up turbines before it builds its factory.

This forces a decision from Cameron — will he reassure the turbine magnates that he plans to keep subsidising wind energy, or will he retreat? The political wind has certainly changed direction. George Osborne is dead set against wind farms, because it has become all too clear to him how much they cost. The Chancellor’s team quietly encouraged MPs to sign a letter to No. 10 a few weeks ago saying that ‘in these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines’.

 

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Andy

    The GWPF have just released a report authored by prof Gordon Hughes, and economist at the University of Edinburgh, that claims that wind power in the UK is around 10 times more expensive that the equivalent in CCGT gas generation.
    Furthermore, he claims that the CO2 emissions are net higher than gas, so there is no environmental gain. The opposite, in fact.

    (assuming that CO2 emissions are of concern to you)

    http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-windpower.pdf

  • Vlad

    I admit to being interested in NZ’s environment.  But while the greens have been fucking around destroying the rainforests through looney ethanol subsidies; destroying the landscape with windfarms; vandalising ships engaged in careful oil exploration, and setting up the world’s biggest scam with carbon trading to benefit crooks frauds and corrupt regimes, we have suffered didymo and other crap in our rivers; parasitic pests around our coast and the rape of our fisheries by iwi leasing off  their Treaty payouts to Korean crooks.  Conservation COULD equal Conservative.  But it doesn’t, the dingbats on the left have captured this ground.  What a shame.   

  • thor42

    Nothing beats nuclear power for the amount of power generated in a given area. One or two nuclear plants north of Auckland would take care of the country’s energy needs for a very long time. 

    • Boss Hogg

      An old friends father, who was a nuclear physicist, was part of a team that NZ brought out from the UK in the late 50’s or early 60’s to carry out a feasability study for Nuke power in NZ.  He had a vested interest on two fronts, he wanted to move to NZ after he had a look around and he needed a job here and a nuke would have been perfect.  But, the findings of the study (and his personal opinion) argued that NZ will NEVER need nuke power, whatever the population forecast.  They concluded that there was so much opportunity for Hydro Power combined with low cost modest amount of thermal power that a nuke could never be justifed.

      The Green Pillocks need to be forced to make a choice between Nuke or Hydro power – one or the other but not nothing.  So hydro it must be then.

      Wind will continue to be a joke and will never make money or produce enough to make a difference.

      • Orange

         Correct

      • MarcWills

        Absolutely. The costs to build and maintain affordable nuclear power generation in NZ are way beyond the means of a country with a population of less than 5 million. Even Canada has deferred such schemes on this basis. New technology on the horizon does not change this either – not in our generation at least.

  • Guest

    None of this UK guff applies to New Zealand, where the wind blows strong, around 4% of total generation is wind-based, and wind power is unsubsidised.

    • Jester

      Fuel type

      Operational capacity at year end 2010

      Wind

      539

      Hydro

      5252

      Gas

      1397

      Coal

      1000

      Geothermal

      723

      Oil

      155

      Other

      29

      Cogeneration

      571

      Total

      9667

      Megawatt output

      • Jester

        Considering we have 568 turbines in operation we only need another 5112 turbines to equal the output of hydro. Any suggestions where we put these?

      • Guest

        http://windenergy.org.nz/nz-wind-farms/proposed-wind-farms 
        total 3.2GW, which is more than all the current gas, coal, and oil capacity. Of course not all will be built but there is ample scope to do so.

  • To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power 

    3

  • Andy

    If you check the live data from the UK, you will see that wiind output varies from 0% to around 5% of total, occasionally higher

    If you scale up wind 10 fold (as planned in the UK) you have a variable from 0 to 50%.
    This requires gas generation to be spinning over to pick up the shortfall.

    As the GWPF report claims, this will cost 10 times as much as gas alone and do nothing to reduce emissions.

    In NZ, this can maybe offset hydro, but the wind blows strongest in spring when the lakes are full.

    If and when the wind bubble bursts in the UK, no one is going to want to put money into such a marginal investment anyway.

48%