Monthly Archives: January 2013

Wind Turbines Spin

You might think that this is a rather obvious statement, but that is not what I mean. Whenever statistics about wind turbine output or unit energy costs are given out by government or the renewable energy industry – there is always a large element of spin. Generation capacity is always given on the basis that the turbine is generating electricity 100% of the time. They have simply adopted the norm for the energy generation industry. The  same would hold true for a gas, coal or nuclear plant, so what is wrong with that? I’m sure you’re way ahead of me here. Yes of course, coal, gas, nuclear and hydro power plants average 85% output in one year. Germany estimates that it will get just 30% of its wind turbine capacity in actual power generated. Very naughty – just over a third of the power generated by conventional means. But it gets worse. That is what Germany estimated they would get. In actuality, over a ten year period all they got was 16%. That is why they are building 23 new coal fired power plants, that and of course the fact that wind generated electricity is 50% more expensive than the cost of conventionally produced energy. But here again that is not the whole story. When conventional backup power (remember wind power is only available 16% of the time) is included in the cost and when extra power transmission costs from disparate remote areas and power loss over long distances are taken into account the real cost is almost three times that of the most efficient new gas plants.
Just like any other information you get from politicians or vested interests, wind energy figures have been spun to death.

Source articles

Source articles

Advertisements

US government over reacting to … AGW say ex NASA employees

The following article reminds me of a question I asked at last year’s climate conference hosted by the Heartland institute. It was addressed to the ex NASA employees (including an astronaut) on the panel and I asked them why only old ex NASA employees put their heads above the parapet when it came to being sceptical about global warming. This elicited laughter from the panel and the explanation (which I already guessed) that careers would suffer if any existing employees dared to voice dissent.
This article shows once again it is only old and retired scientists whose career’s cannot be affected who can afford to take a contrary view on Global Warming.
It appals me to think that politics in manipulating science in this way. Oh for a white knight to lead a charge against the darkness of politically imposed ignorance.

Original article


Victim & Darling of Global Warming

A couple of my heroes of the environment movement are the two Davids, Bellamy and Attenborough. Bellamy came late to the party and left early or should I say, was asked to leave for voicing his opinions and then sticking to them. I love them both but of late Attenborough has disappointed me. Unlike Belllamy he succumbed to the pressure of the BBC to tow the line and get with the global warming program. Can I blame him. I’d like to think in the same circumstances I would have stood up to them and said “hang the career” but who knows. Bellamy has paid the price for his obstinacy. Calling global warming “poppycock” pretty much ended his career at the Beeb and signed his own death warrant with the mainstream environmental organisations.

Read the following two articles (coincidentally published in two different papers on the same day) and muse on how differently their careers might have been had they chosen to speak out or shut up.

Bellamy article Attenborough article

PS Attenborough has gone seriously Malthusian. Another false prophet.


The Money Tree

The following article gives a very good over view of the workings of carbon trading. It also highlights the pitfalls for anyone tempted to get into this get rich quick scheme. Me thinks the smart money is already on the way out and looking for the next main chance. Snake oil anyone?

Source article