Green Energy Is Dead

The combination of rising electricity prices and plummeting oil prices has finished off the fake green energy market. I saw gasoline for $1.79/gallon in Albuquerque yesterday.

It is cheaper to drive a gasoline powered vehicle than a useless electric vehicle.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

List: 36 Of Obama’s Taxpayer-Funded Green Energy Failures – Fox Nation

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

399 Responses to Green Energy Is Dead

  1. Jonathan Castle says:

    Oh, the ironing!

  2. Mat Helm says:

    That’s not even including the $7500 per out of my back pocket…

  3. Rud Istvan says:

    The situation is much worse than portrayed for three reasons.
    1. The list is incomplete even just for the US. e.g NanoSolar
    2. The list does not include much larger bankruptcies outside the US e.g. Suntech Power in China
    3. The stated losses are in some cases grossly underestimated. Konaeko lost over $120 million total. Range Fuels did not just lose $80 million in venture equity. It also lost $156 million in grants and loan quarantees. And so forth.

  4. thejollygreenman says:

    it was such a beautiful dream wasn’t it?

    The wind and the tides all giving us free energy in copious quantities,

    Pity the that the capricious capitalist system that demanded continuous and reliable quantities of electricity when we did our washing, commuting,, and wanted to watch night time TV didn’t play along.

    Now all we need is for the masses is to stop being so self-centred, follow our dictactics , and all will be well.

  5. Don says:

    There is no free lunch, and there is no free energy.

  6. Pathway says:

    Energy density rules.

  7. skeohane says:

    Didn’t Romney say to BO something to the effect of; ‘You don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers’. Still seems on track.

  8. aeroguy48 says:

    You are joking right Steve? Err Mr. Goddard. I mean you have to be joking. Green energy dead? Hahahaha. Federal Government subsidies esp. Green energy subsidies will live in perpetuity, longer than death and taxes. Hardee har har, thanks for the laffs Steve.

  9. SMS says:

    The government shouldn’t even be in the business of energy development. They have no idea of how the market works. They don’t know where to start.

    Consider all the money wasted on illegitimate power projects. None of these projects have a chance without first developing a cheap, small, and powerful battery. One that can drive a car all day without recharging. One that can store energy from a PV cell or windmill and then feed it back into the grid when it is needed.

    Just like the government to get the cart before the horse.

  10. Beale says:

    Green energy is based on the idea that the rational people will find a way to make the irrational work.

  11. kuhnkat says:

    But Gubernator Moonbeam raised the gas taxes in Californication to reduce the pain of lower gas prices to his constituents…

  12. Chris Barron says:

    Is it wise to base the worthiness of one energy source group (renewable) on the financial cost of another group, fossil fuels. We know fossil will run out….and what happens when the price rises back up again ?
    Nuclear isn’t a realistic alternative yet because nuclear has never turned a profit, when you take into account the cost of decommissioning old plant, it runs with an efficiency of less than 0.3% and then there is less than 80 years worth of uranium left (and that’s at current useage levels, wait till China finishes it’s next tranche of nuclear station construction)
    To complain about subsidies for renewables is to shoot yourself in the foot, because the fossil fuel business has received over five times more in subsidies than renewables have.

    “If you can’t burn it to make steam then it’s useless”, seems a bit old fashioned to me

    • KTM says:

      Oil companies are the top tax paying corporations in the US. The only money that green energy companies send to Washington is campaign contributions to get a river of government largesse in return.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/17/companies-paying-highest-income-taxes/1991313/

      • Chris Barron says:

        So what you have just confirmed is that it is exactly the same for the new renewables business now as it was in the days when oil was the new industry….. It was a good start for oil and coal then, It’s proven to work

      • Gail Combs says:

        More on the ‘cost’ of nuclear. (This does not get into thorium nuclear.)

        Energy Subsidies and External Costs

        (Updated November 2014)
        Substantial amounts have been invested in energy R&D over the last 50 years. Much of this has been directed at developing nuclear energy – which now supplies 12% of world electricity.
        Today, apart from Japan and France, there is about twice as much R&D investment in renewables than nuclear, but with rather less to show for it and with less potential for electricity supply.
        Nowhere in the world is nuclear power subsidised per unit of production. In some countries however it is taxed because production costs are so low.
        Renewables have received heavy direct subsidies in the market by various means, but these are being scaled back or abandoned in some places due to the high cost to consumers.
        Fossil fuels receive indirect subsidies in their waste disposal as well as some direct subsidies.
        Nuclear energy fully accounts for its waste disposal and decommissioning costs in financial evaluations.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Nuclear is expensive because of the costs associated with the Anti-nuclear types. I lived in a town with one of the first nuclear plants before the Anti-nuclear protest types drove the cost sky high. My energy bill was $10/month WITH electric heat near Buffalo New York. I moved to the Boston area and had major sticker shock when my energy bill was over $350/month (natural gas plus electric)

      This expresses the thinking of the elite on cheap energy:

      “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” —Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Dr. John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, 1970, p. 323
      Holdren is now Obama’s Science Czar.

      The Rockefellers own Standard Oil (now Exxon among others.) They are internationalists and want a world government. They are involved with the Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations and Rockefeller has also for many years hosted annual luncheons at the family’s Westchester County Pocantico estate for the world’s finance ministers and central bank governors, following the annual Washington meetings of the World Bank and IMF. The last thing the Rockefellers wanted is cheap nuclear energy and they have the political muscle and the money to make sure it did not happen and is not going to happen. The Rockefeller’s also funded CRU of climategate fame.

      The Rockefeller involvement in Nuclear Energy:

      Unfortunately the link (***Rockefeller: Committees on biological effects of Atomic radiation) is dead but the Rockefellers funded many studies into the health hazards of radiation. As we now know, studies often find the results they are paid to find. As can be seen here: Motives for pushing a no-threshold dose radiation risk model (LNT) in 1955-56

      The Rockefellers funded the Anti-nuclear power movement that is still alive today.

      The Struggle for Power What we Haven’t Been Told and Why!
      The real issues behind the uranium and nuclear argument, viewed both internationally and nationally.

      In 1971 Ralph Nader, bankrolled by the Rockefeller network, began to work with a lawyer Anthony Roisman and the “Union of Concerned Scientists” to combine the efforts of environmental groups and public interest lawyers against NP. They worked on several fronts:

      * Legal action delay projects. [major cost over-runs]
      *Lobbying Congress and Government agencies. [added cost of useless Regs]
      *Propagandising the churches [sound familiar Pope Frank?]
      *Advertising directed at the general public

      Exaggerated dangers and innuendos of industry incompetence were widely accepted as fact. The industry had no strategy for self-defence, being in the business of NP, not propaganda, and became “an 80 billion dollar underdog”.

      “To cut a long story short, thanks to Ralph Nader’s initiative, there exists a well co-ordinated coalition of interest groups in the USA with all the attributes of a major corporation: well planned, influential, with strong political and financial support, well-tested strategies, professional communication expertise and tremendous legal punch. About 600 full-time “environmental lawyers” operated on a budget of at least 45 million dollars in 1977 and about one-third of this was spent purely on energy-stopping.

      Conversation with an anti society antinuclear activist

      …I had the opportunity a few days ago of talking to a bright young anti-nuclear activist about the way Fukushima has helped the anti-nuclear cause. Pretty quickly we got into the difference between what actually happened at Fukushima, and what has been reported about it by anti-nuclear lobby groups such as the one he was involved with.

      I braced myself for a debate about how serious the nuclear accident really was, health effects, long term effect, cleanup costs, etc. But I was completely taken off-guard by what he told me right off the bat. He actually *agreed* that the seriousness of the accident was greatly overstated and that the health effects were likely te turn out to be as small as to be nonexistent.

      My response was, of course, to ask how he could align this with the scaremongering and misinformation being spread by the anti-nuclear parties. He then explained to me that the facts about nuclear energy, it’s safety and even it’s positive economic effects were not relevant.

      He said that the ideology of sustainability and anti-nuclearism was so important for the future of humanity that facts should be of no concern. Moreover: if the invention of fake information (i.e. lies) about nuclear energy could bring closer the day of elimination of nuclear power from the earth, then that meant that producing and spreading fake information should (and indeed was) a top priority of all anti-nuclear groups.

      So then I asked him why he thought that it was moral and defensible to lie to people. He said that people in general cannot and do not base their views and opinions on facts, so the value of facts versus fiction was relative. In order to bring about the disired outcome (i.e. a nuclear free world) fiction could be (and in fact was, in his opinion) a much better way to do it then facts.

      Finally, I asked him why he thought nuclear power should be eliminated even after he told me that he agreed that nuclear power was good for the economy. His reply was simply that an additional goal of the antinuclear movement (as far as he was concerned) was in fact the reduction of economic activity, since according to him, the greatest cause of ecological damage was increased economic activity.….

      I take it Chris Barron, that like this anti-nuclear activist, you have no problem with spreading lies about nuclear and Green Energy because the goal is to bring modern civilization crashing down to a level of brutal poverty under the yoke of the international elite, all in the name of the ‘envronment’.

      *** Rockefeller: Committees on biological effects of Atomic radiation
      links
      http://www7.nationalacademies.org/archives/bear.html#P18_1636
      (wwwDOT)nasonline.org/about-nas/history/archives/collections/cbear-1954-1964.html

      • Gail, your energy bill in Buffalo had nothing to do with nuclear. Remember, there is a little waterfall near buffalo that makes the cheapest electricity on earth.

        • Gail Combs says:

          But Morgan, it was frozen solid!!!

        • But Morgan, it was frozen solid!!!

          & that’s the point! Solid H2O only has 90% of the energy potential of liquid because it’s less dense! But imagine the returns you’d get if your turbines were working with a fluid that had the viscosity of plasma!

    • SMS says:

      Chris, Your story appears to be full of holes at first glance. First, you need to contact the French to tell them that the 60+% power they receive from their nuclear power plants is not sustainable. They may be surprised to hear this news.

      Presently, very little of the uranium in a nuclear rod is used prior to it’s replacement. Their is ongoing research to develop methods to increase this percentage. And some success has been achieved using acid washes.

      Your “80 years of uranium left” is a little sus. I suspect it’s based on “known” reserves. Similar to P3 reserves in the oil industry. Which means there is still a lot of uranium still to be discovered and mined.

      • Chris Barron says:

        Sorry but I don’t know how to measure ‘A lot’. As for the French, why are they reducing the amount of electricity generation from nuclear, aiming at below 50% in 20 years time………are they stupid ? If nuclear is so reliable and long lived why don’t they install more, not less ?

        When they recently looked to decommission and experimental 90MW plant they estimated the total cost to be less than 90 million Euro. The final cost has exceeded 400 million Euro (and that’s for a small plant)

        Quote > > >
        Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand, jointly prepared by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates the total identified amount of conventional uranium stock, which can be mined for less than $130 per kilo, at about 4.7 million tonnes.

        Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand, that is sufficient for 85 years, according to the study, also known as the ‘Red Book.’
        End quote > > >

        Since 2004 nuclear generation rate has increased and continues to do so….lets say 80 years is being kind. It’s fine and good talking about new ideas and better use of materials, but until that day and all of the old type reactors are upgraded that time ticks down faster by the day.

        • SMS says:

          The French used to have 56 nuclear plants generating 79% of her power needs. Now they have 59. Doesn’t look like they changed their power mix. They can’t go to 50% without switching those nuclear power plants to coal. The cost to decommission a nuclear plant from nuclear to coal is going to cost the amount you show above. And they aren’t going to spend that amount of money with no economic return. The logic of your post makes no sense for the French.

          As for the amount of uranium available; there is much more than your quoted quantity.
          If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet’s economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.

          I would suggest that no one can “accurately” estimate, and that there is more than 200 years. The NEA is only looking at proven reserves and not including Probable and Possible.

          When you consider how little of the uranium rod is used before being considered spent, and how much can be recovered, the number and life of nuclear power plants will extent well past 200 years. Acid wash technology is already recovering a small, but significant amount of the remaining uranium left in the spent rod.

          And we haven’t even discussed breeder reactors. This is the future of power generation once fossil fuels become uneconomic to extract. Not “sustainable” power. Sustainable power is a myth.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Here’s the outlook regarding China, from last month’s Economist
          http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21635487-chinas-rush-build-nuclear-power-plants-dangerous-make-haste-slowly

          “Current rates of consumption” is an elastic term and there are even fears over nuclear fuel shortages. Even without shortages the price of fissionable material is set to rise steeply in the next couple of decades. “Current prices” is also an elastic term….

        • SMS says:

          Chris, I could not find your quote in the article. You must have pasted it from somewhere else. As for the Chinese, they must have a significant source of uranium to start building that many nuclear power plants. Or they plan on developing/stealing methods for recovering fissionable material from their spent rods. The article does refer to China building sustainable power, but that would primarily involve the large hydro-electric dams and not PV or wind.

          In addition to the nuclear power plants they are currently building, they are also building one coal fired power plant every two weeks; all to meet their current energy needs.

          Here is an article on kwh costing. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/16/the-levelized-cost-of-electric-generation/ When you add the backup power needed to sustain wind and PV, the cost per kwh balloons even beyond the numbers posted in the above article. PV and solar will never be sustainable and our next move after fossil fuels will be nuclear. Best get ready now.

        • Daavid A says:

          TFrom EM Smith…”This clever scientist in Japan made a polymer that absorbs it from sea water at a price of about $150 / lb. Not competitive with the land based U by a few dollars, so not counted as an “economic reserve” today; but certainly cheap enough to make cheap electricity. And if we powered the whole planet on sea water U, we would extract slightly less each year than washes into the ocean via erosion… We run out of energy when we run out of planet. Literally. See:

          How the Japanese do it
          http://www.taka.jaea.go.jp/eimr_div/j637/theme3%20sea_e.html

        • Chris Barron says:

          Pie in the sky that…so far only tested with filtered sea water…are they going to filter the oceans ? Then the process is slowwwwwww…and requires lots of acid …..the startup costs are huge and payback is over 35 years….three times greater than a wind turbine…and lets hope they get no ‘subsidy’ or there’ll be hell to pay 😉

          Keep feeding the fire till it runs out of fuel….there must be a better way to get energy from radioactive sources ?

  13. In my experience (as someone selected by Green party** to stand for the Scottish parliament) …
    Green = Naive.
    Green Energy = Perpetual Motion

    As an engineer who could actually work out how many windmills it takes to boil a kettle … I was astonished to discover that back in 2000, their idea of “wind power” was a few 1m wide toys sitting in gardens.

    **The main thing I regret, is that even though I knew the greens were being taken by the nose by wind developers and even though I had a science degree, it never occurred to me that the global warming “science” was just made up nonsense by public sector academia.

    • Chris Barron says:

      Gail there is no need to call me a liar.

      I’m an engineer (B.Eng, first class honours) and have written in depth about the energy mix of the UK. That was required for my degree, and the result was good for me.

      I was surprised to find out that nuclear is so inefficient. That is a truth, it is roughly 0.27% efficient….about the most imaginative thing we can find to do with radioactive materials is to make steam. We’re still in caves boiling pots of water in that regard…what’s clever about building bigger longer lasting fires to make steam to in turn make electricity….we need the electricity, not the heat or steam but we seem damn sure that we have to have the two intermediate wasteful steps.

      As for the cost of nuclear, you missed the point about decommissioning…the latest estimate for the UK alone is that the cost to decommission all existing nuclear plants when they reach EOL easily outweighs any profit they ever made.

      Presumably Gail you think it is ok for private companies to build the things, take the profit, but then leave the responsibility of paying for their decommissioning to the consumers….happy to share the costs, not so keen to share the profits.

      Finally “you have no problem with spreading lies about nuclear and Green Energy because the goal is to bring modern civilization crashing down to a level of brutal poverty under the yoke of the international elite”

      No need for me or anyone else to do that Gail…..all it will take is a few more people like you determined to make as many enemies as they can. I merely wanted to point out that we need alternatives to fossil fuels within a few generations…..or are you saying ‘sod them’ to those people. ? Tell me what of anything I wrote was a lie or something which I cannot substantiate with evidence or even plain maths. I’m really interested…..

      I’m not a green anyway, but I’m not a blinkered dinosaur either……Have you ever heard of Peter Stringfellow ? He thinks sex is the best thing in the world….which is great for him until his nuts shrivel and he realises he should have had a few other irons in the fire….This is how I see our fuel supply today, one day it will not be there either and then what ? are you dreaming that we will all be on Mars by then ?

      I realise that this puts me in an awkward position too, I object to the lies about CO2 causing global warming as much as the next person here, but what I know for a fact is that we need a greater variety of energy sources….and that there’s horses for courses.

      There is so much energy in the universe that it’s virtually impossible to comprehend, a single solar flare can knock out our power grid here due to the surge it causes and here we are arguing that the best thing for us is bigger fires and larger pots of boiling water……

      And then again perhaps I am too old fashioned….because i do wonder about the huge loss of jobs if we do commit to nuclear……what we need at the grass roots level is jobs and by building hundreds of thousands of things using lots of labour, which need servicing every 20 years, is a great start on the road to job security for large numbers of the population….is that what you mean Gail by saying I am looking forward to a collapse of a society, by hoping for more, not fewer jobs ?

      • Gail Combs says:

        Nuclear will not stick the tax payer with the cost as a separate “off budget item”

        Energy Subsidies and External Costs

        (Updated November 2014)
        Substantial amounts have been invested in energy R&D over the last 50 years. Much of this has been directed at developing nuclear energy – which now supplies 12% of world electricity.
        Today, apart from Japan and France, there is about twice as much R&D investment in renewables than nuclear, but with rather less to show for it and with less potential for electricity supply.
        Nowhere in the world is nuclear power subsidised per unit of production. In some countries however it is taxed because production costs are so low.
        Renewables have received heavy direct subsidies in the market by various means, but these are being scaled back or abandoned in some places due to the high cost to consumers.
        Fossil fuels receive indirect subsidies in their waste disposal as well as some direct subsidies.
        Nuclear energy fully accounts for its waste disposal and decommissioning costs in financial evaluations.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Chris Barron says:
        “…..And then again perhaps I am too old fashioned….because i do wonder about the huge loss of jobs if we do commit to nuclear……what we need at the grass roots level is jobs and by building hundreds of thousands of things using lots of labour, which need servicing every 20 years, is a great start on the road to job security for large numbers of the population….is that what you mean Gail by saying I am looking forward to a collapse of a society, by hoping for more, not fewer jobs ?….”

        Your economics needs work. LOW COST ENERGY means MORE JOBS and a higher standard of living.

        Here is a comparison for you: Things using lots of labour with job security for large numbers of the population:

        In 1830 about 250-300 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail.
        In 1840 Farmers made up 69% of labor force
        In 1850 about 75-90 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels of corn (2-1/2 acres) with walking plow, harrow, and hand planting.

        Thanks to modern low cost abundant ENERGY:
        In 1987 only 3 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels (3 acres) of wheat with tractor, 35-foot sweep disk, 30-foot drill, 25-foot self-propelled combine, and trucks
        And only 2-3/4 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels (1-1/8 acres) of corn with tractor, 5-bottom plow, 25-foot tandem disk, planter, 25-foot herbicide applicator, 15-foot self-propelled combine, and trucks.

        Without the low cost abundant and reliable ENERGY we are back to wooden hand made farm equipment and horse and oxen. We are back to mining with children and ponies to haul the ore out of the mines. We are back to using charcoal to do the smelting of the ore. And all that is dependent on having enough trees left after the burning for heat.

      • Gail Combs says:

        “Presumably Gail you think it is ok for private companies to build the things, take the profit, but then leave the responsibility of paying for their decommissioning to the consumers….happy to share the costs, not so keen to share the profits.”

        And who is going to bear the cost of decommissioning all the windmills and solar panels? The companies involved have long ago bankrupted and made off with all the subsidy money. Most legislation today no matter what the country is designed to move wealth from the peons to the elite.

        As far as my attack on you, I am sick and tired of the ‘Renewables are Great’ crowd pushing an energy mix that is going to result in major riots in US cities in the next five to ten years or perhaps sooner. After more than ten years of knocking my head against the wall of propaganda put out not only on CAGW, and renewables but also on ‘Food Safety’ my temper is very very short.

        Other options for energy? Sure I am in favor but Wind and Solar are good only as niche market players or as a minor part of the mix.

        I much rather see the $$$$ wasted on the Dead End Wind and Solar boondoggle used to bring Thorium nuclear up to speed and then fusion.

        Of course there is also the Russian’s studies showing petroleum products are abiotic so ‘running out’ may not be the problem the Malthusian doom sayers think it is.

        OH and I suggest you read THE BROKEN WINDOW by Frederic Bastiat, 1850

        Destroying coal as an energy source and replacing it with the non-viable ‘renewables’ is the ultimate in broken windows that will leave the elite much richer and the peons shivering in the cold and dying from ‘Fuel Poverty’ while their jobs flee to India and China. China and India of course, not being the fools like first world numpties, are busy building coal and Nuclear plants as fast as they can – paid for by first world tax payers via World Bank loans.
        .

        …..Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – “It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”

        Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions…..

        The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention. One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labour suffers proportionably by the same cause. It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying – What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?…..

      • Gail Combs says:

        “I was surprised to find out that nuclear is so inefficient. That is a truth, it is roughly 0.27% efficient…”

        I am not at all surprise. The current nuclear plants, at least in the USA has as their primary purpose the production of material for nuclear bombs. That is why Thorium nuclear was abandoned.

        Also when you say the efficiency is 0.27%, I am assuming you are talking the conversion of nuclear fuel to daughter products and releasing heat.

        Again that is misleading because a single uranium fuel pellet contains as much energy as 480 cubic metres of natural gas, 807 kilos of coal or 149 gallons of oil.
        27 tonnes of fresh fuel is required each year by a 1000 MWe nuclear reactor. In contrast, a coal power station requires more than two and a half million tonnes of coal to produce as much electricity. (1)

        The vast majority of all nuclear power reactors require ‘enriched’ uranium fuel in which the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope has been raised from the natural level of 0.7% to about 3.5% to 5%…. A small number of reactors, notably the Canadian CANDU reactors, do not require uranium to be enriched.

        Used fuel still contains about 96% of its original uranium and can be reprocessed. Reprocessing separates uranium and plutonium from waste products (and from the fuel assembly cladding) by chopping up the fuel rods and dissolving them in acid to separate the various materials. It enables recycling of the uranium and plutonium into fresh fuel, and produces a significantly reduced amount of waste

        So nuclear reactors use 4% of the original 3.5% to 5% in the fuel rods and that is where you got that 0.27% number. Obfuscate Much? (And he wonders why I question his statements….)

        Also this tidbit on the storage of ‘Nuclear waste’ for future use.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Perhaps Gail you should recalculate and see how much loss there is in the turbines, and in the heat transfer process too. Of all the possible energy stored in a a unit mass of uranium only a total of 0.27% of the energy makes it onto the power grid. Coal and gas can get into the 30% range, wind is higher still.

          As for birds flying into rotors, birds fly into my house regularly, every year I find a couple of dead birds which thought the window was an opening to a cave…perhaps you wish to campaign for the elimination of windows ?

        • Daavid A says:

          “Perhaps Gail you should recalculate and see how much loss there is in the turbines, and in the heat transfer process too. Of all the possible energy stored in a a unit mass of uranium only a total of 0.27% of the energy makes it onto the power grid. Coal and gas can get into the 30% range, wind is higher still.”
          ————————————————————————————————-
          Wow, did you really do this as a criticism of Nuclear. It is “Nuclear” power. That .27% is the percentage of the energy in the fuel, but the energy generated is many many times greater then an = amount of coal. Burning a 20 pound log of oak uses well over 90% of the mass of the log. Take 20 pounds of pure uranium in a 3rd generation reactor, and you can power your family, and all your relatives families for life.

        • Chris Barron says:

          David, it is when you start by saying ‘we have so much we can afford to waste a lot’ that life will teach you otherwise, one way or another

  14. Gail Combs says:

    Chris Barron says:
    “So what you have just confirmed is that it is exactly the same for the new renewables business now as it was in the days when oil was the new industry….. It was a good start for oil and coal then, It’s proven to work”
    ……………
    What bovine feces!

    Let’s look at WIND POWER
    Wind power “NEW” I do not think so.

    Wind propelled boats along the Nile River as early as 5,000 B.C., and helped Persians pump water and grind grain between 500 and 900 B.C so it is not exactly a “new energy’ source. Wind is just an energy source that was rejected because it is intermittent, expensive and near useless as I found out when I looked at wind as an option for my farm. I soon realized it was a scam. Even windmills used on farms in remote locations to pump water for livestock have been replaced by diesel generators.

    1850s–Daniel Halladay and John Burnham start the U.S. Wind Engine Company and build the Halladay Windmill, which is designed for the landscape of the American West. [Kerosene lamps became popular in the 1860s when the petroleum industry opened in 1859. Prior to that Whale oil was used. So wind beats out oil for first developed]

    Late 1800s–Wind power in North America helps farmers and ranchers pump water for irrigation and windmills generate electricity for homes and businesses.

    Late 1890s–The invention of steel blades for windmills makes them more efficient and as homesteaders move west, more than six million windmills are erected throughout the countryside.

    1890–Larger windmills, called wind turbines, begin appearing on hills in Denmark.
    1893 – The Chicago World’s Fair showcases 15 windmill companies and their wind turbine designs.

    1940s–The largest wind turbine begins operating on a Vermont hilltop known as “Grandpa’s Knob.” It is rated at 1.25 megawatts (MW) in winds of about 30 mph and feeds electric power to the local utility network for several months during World War II.

    1950s–Most wind turbines in the United States are shut down because of disuse.

    1970s–The price of oil skyrockets and so does interest and research in wind turbines and the power they generate.

    1978–Congress passes the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, which requires companies to buy a certain amount of electricity from renewable energy sources, including wind.

    1981–National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists Larry Viterna and Bob Corrigan develop “The Viterna Method,” which goes on to become the most common method used for predicting wind turbine performance, thus increasing the efficiency of turbine output to this day.

    1990–More than 2,200 MW of wind energy capacity is installed around California, creating more than half of the world’s capacity for wind power….
    energy(DOT)gov/eere/wind/history-wind-energy

    Isn’t it interesting that the US Government does not tell you that by 2011 there were 14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA and us peons will no doubt get stuck with the cost of clean-up.

    What the government also does not tell you is that Wind turbines have the license to destroy rare birds. For example on the Dengie Peninsula in Essex is a very important wilderness area with large flocks of golden plover. After Wind turbines were installed ( with the blessing of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) who now has pro-wind campaigners at the head) there is ONE breeding pair left.

    For another example the GOLDEN EAGLE: There are fewer than 500 breeding pairs left in the UK. The Golden eagle census has been delayed for two years, without good reason, but I am sure we can guess why:

    America’s wind farms are actually slaughtering millions of birds and bats annually

    Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s 2004 study, spanning four years, estimated that California’s Altamont Pass wind “farm” killed an average of 116 Golden Eagles annually (2). This adds up to 2,900 dead “goldies” since it was built 25 years ago.

    The Obama administration is issuing 30-year permits for “taking” (killing) bald and golden eagles. The great birds will be legally slaughtered “unintentionally” by lethal wind turbines installed in their breeding territories, and in “dispersion areas” where their young congregate (e.g. Altamont Pass).

    By chance (if you believe in coincidences), a timely government study claims wind farms will kill “only” 1.4 million birds yearly by 2030 (1). This new report is just one of many, financed with taxpayers’ money, aimed at convincing the public that additional mortality caused by wind plants is sustainable. – It is not….
    savetheeaglesinternational(DOT)org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html

    Why Wind Power Has Low Economic Value (Actually it has NONE according to an engineer who did the actual calculations. Wind turbines have an embarrassingly low Energy Returned On Energy Invested value of 0.29. The manufacture, installation and operation of wind power facilities will consume more than 3 times the energy they will ever produce. Wind Turbines are NOT windmills built of locally available low cost resources like trees and cloth so the EROEI is completely different.

    Michael Goggin, manager of transmission policy at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), posted a second response to my report “Wind Intermittency and the Production Tax Credit: A High Cost Subsidy for Low Value Power.” As before, Goggin does not respond to my analysis, leaving my main point unanswered.

    In my report, I analyzed four years’ of hourly production and load data and found that wind generation followed an uneconomic pattern, producing the most electricity when least needed and the least electricity when demand and market prices were highest.

    Each megawatt-hour (MWh) of volatile and intermittent wind generation costs more to “integrate” into the electric grid than traditional fossil-generating and nuclear-generating resources, whose output is not subject to the vagaries of the weather. Thus, in addition to the wind production tax credit (PTC), consumers and taxpayers are also paying other hidden costs to support wind….
    dailysignal(DOT)com/2012/12/18/why-wind-power-has-low-economic-value/

    2012 THE DARK SIDE OF “GREEN”: WIND TURBINE ACCIDENTS, INJURIES AND FATALITIES RAISE SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERNS

    …A dark side of the wind industry that many media outlets have failed to report on is the thousands of documented cases of serious accidents. These include numerous documented cases of turbines falling over, blades flying off, injuries to workers and the public, and at least 99 reported fatality accidents.

    Of the deaths, 67 were wind industry and direct supporters workers or small turbine operators and 32 were public fatalities.

    How many tragedies have occurred worldwide is a well-kept secret within the wind industry. In the United Kingdom alone, however, Renewables UK, an industry trade association, has admitted to 1,500 wind turbine accidents/incidents in the UK alone during the past five years….
    eastcountymagazine(DOT)org/dark-side-“green”-wind-turbine-accidents-injuries-and-fatalities-raise-serious-safety-concerns

    And the Obummer’s Admin wants to regulate Christmas lights out of business because of ONE (1) death per year!?!

    • gofer says:

      Never seen a eagle, bat or any bird of prey fly into my house or car, yet that is their argument. Really beyond stupid.

  15. Groty says:

    I filled up for $1.72 per gallon here in Kansas City on Saturday. As I was pumping, I was thinking about how the “smart people” in the media snickered and mocked Newt Gingrich for saying during the presidential debates that $2.00/gallon was feasible if we did not stop the fracking revolution with bad policy.

    • kuhnkat says:

      I didn’t fill up yesterday because Gubernator Moonbeam’s gas tax kicked in and lifted our price from the low 2.40’s to about 2.54. The first rise in price we have seen in months.

  16. groovyman67 says:

    According to this report the government green energy subsidies program is actually profitable:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-12/u-s-expects-5-billion-from-program-that-funded-solyndra.html

    I don’t have time to do all the research, look into other costs besides just the subsidies or see what else this report might be hiding or overlooking. I don’t agree with the program, but if it is ultimately profitable – the failures included – at least it’s a sliver lining. I’m sure they will find a way to waste any money they make or use it to promote abortion or take more vacations, but I am interested in the truth.

  17. buhhhday says:

    Oil is cheap now because of an influx of supply from fracking, and OPEC not decreasing output. Saying gas was $1.79 in Albuquerque is totally irrelevant. If I recall, it’s free in Qatar or Kuwait for the citizens. That doesn’t mean anything as far as global energy usage is concerned. It’s all about supply and demand, and OPEC has ensured there is plenty of demand. They’re kind of upset with the whole fracking thing and are trying to minimize the profits made from it to slow its implementation. Why don’t you mention that? You paint a very one sided story here. I think it’s hardly fair to say green energy is dead based on a price war in another part of the energy sector.

    When, in the end, we will run out of fossil fuels (and we certainly will), it hardly matters how we replace them, as long as we can manage it. As long as you can both agree that we need to do something about our energy situation, then any argument about the current state of renewables is somewhat moot. Fossil fuels WILL run out, they are a finite resource. When the production begins to decline, if we haven’t figured out a way to make up for that loss then we will be forced to take massive cuts to our standards of living in a very short time span. I don’t see how arguing that current renewables are bad will help with the end result, when it comes. Why not talk about geothermal? It’s an amazing energy source that we hardly use! Stick some pipes in the ground and all you need to do is pump water through them! The systems can work for decades if left untouched. And best of all, it’s tapping into a natural heat source that can be directly used to heat buildings! It can be used to generate electricity, but more importantly it can skip the middle man and directly moderate temperatures in a building. Why don’t you talk about that, instead of bashing other green sources?

    I mean, if you want to talk about “wasting money” there are tons of worse things the United States government wastes money on. Our military budget is close to $700 billion. Why is this not argued about? That’s an obscene amount of money compared to everyone else. Obscene. Yet it is hardly ever discussed. As a country we possess 450 LGM-30 Minuteman ICBMs, which cost $7 million apiece. Total, that’s $3.15 billion spent on missiles that we don’t need to use. Why is that not a more important issue? Do you know how much a new Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor costs? Any idea? $150 million. Do you know how many of them the Air Force has? 195. Do you know why we aren’t buying more? Because of “a lack of relevant adversaries.” Is that discussed? Never once has someone brought this up to me in a conversation. Honestly, I’d love to see someone in congress go “wait, we spent HOW much on those?!” That program cost us over $65 billion. Yet it’s never covered by media. I know it’s biased towards sensationalism, but I’d rather hear about the things that are actually costing me money, not how a few green energy companies went bankrupt.

    We effectively give fossil fuel companies $3.2 billion a year in subsidies. How is giving money to an industry where the top five companies make a PROFIT of $93 billion a year not a problem? Personally, I don’t think they need it. And neither would any taxpayer. But is this ever discussed? Not usually. People are much more apt to argue about the efficiency of renewable power than they are to discuss the fact that for some reason, the government is subsidizing the oil companies. I don’t care how much they’re giving them, in my opinion it should be nothing. They’re perfectly capable of making money by themselves.

    The problem is awaiting us in the future. Feel free to bash the only way we’ll ever make it out of that with our standards of living even remotely intact. In the meantime though, I suggest you look at ways the government is actually wasting money, rather than how it’s trying to help in the long run. Because god forbid the government ever try to think ahead. There’s a reason that younger people tend to be more liberal on this matter, it’s because we know that the world we’ll be left with is going to have to deal with these energy issues and we are perfectly capable of understanding that fossil fuels are a non renewable resource. We were taught that in elementary school science class. It’s pretty basic stuff.

    So in my mind, the logical approach to this would be to stop subsidizing oil companies (seriously, why do we do that? Someone tell me this.) and try to focus on increasing the efficiency and reliability of existing renewable energy sources. Because someday, fossil fuels will run out. The sun will still be there, the wind will still be blowing, the rivers will still be running, and nature will continue to do what it has done for millions of years. Hopefully we will have been able to harness some of the energy it was nice enough to make available, and we didn’t waste our time saying that because the current methods weren’t perfect they should be abandoned in favor of cheaper fossil fuels.

    We have a duty to the young people and children of today to make their world a good one. I can’t see how supporting non renewable resources will do that. Sure, it’s cheaper now. But it. Will run. Out. End of story. Don’t ruin my future because you want to save a few dollars at the pump.

    Oh, and ONLY 112 people died from working in the oil industry in 2013. That was down from 142 in 2012. Good thing it’s so safe though. Yep. No double standards here. None at all. Because it’s obvious that renewable energies should inherently be safer. Newer technologies are always immediately safer right? They don’t need time or money to improve, they’re immediately perfect. It’s totally okay for oil to be unsafe after all, it’s an old, established industry that’s had a hundred years to figure itself out. Obviously, it’s doing the best it can at keeping its employees safe. Mhmm. Yep. Nothing unfair about that statement at all.

    So, yeah. Don’t ruin my future because something that might help it doesn’t work right now. And don’t post articles bashing something that’s incredibly irrelevant. You might also want to post an article about how the government correctly invested in oil companies, since they were already successful. That’s effectively the same thing. How many good things have come from government investments? Maybe look at some of those, before choosing one that’s incredibly important to the youth of the world and saying it’s a useless endeavor. Because I sincerely hope it isn’t a useless endeavor. If it is, then thanks for leaving my generation with so much to work with. Because honestly, we don’t have much as it is.

  18. Gail Combs says:

    For birds hitting windows use drapes or sheers (see through light weight curtains). The birds can see them.

    Solving the Bat chomping Bird shredding character of the Wind turbines is not that easy since the raptors like to soar on the winds the turbines need and the smell of fresh meat draws them. You have also just proved you are not a Conservationist. Keep digging.

    ……

    Supply of Uranium “Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon….Quantities of mineral resources are greater than commonly perceived. The world’s known uranium resources increased by at least one-quarter in the last decade due to increased mineral exploration.”

    Thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium.

    World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements Archive – June 2010

    Updated: World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements – 1 December 2014

    If France wants to commit economic suicide that is their problem. The UK has already made it quite clear they want to commit suicide however the peons are waking up and fleeing to the UKIP party.

    New Reactors (2014)

    Country… REACTORS …. REACTORS ….REACTORS
    …………………..UNDER ……PLANNED …….PROPOSED
    ………CONSTRUCTION
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Argentina…………..1…………….0……………………..3
    Poland………………0……………..6…………………….0
    China……………….26…………..60………………..120
    India………………….6……………22…………………35
    Japan………………..3……………..9…………………..3
    So Korea …………..5……………..8…………………..0
    Russia……………….10…………..31………………..18
    USA…………………….5…………..5…………………17
    UAE…………………….3…………..1…………………10
    It seems the UK has also seen the light – WOW!
    UK…………………….0…………….4………………….7

    These were copied so may not be correct. See original above.

  19. Chris Barron says:

    Gail, I don’t claim to be a conservationist, but I do believe that pollution is bad…..so I guess you don’t mind the oil soaked albatrosses washed up on beaches after an oil spill ? You never mentioned that so should I assume an albatross, or millions of gulls are not worth the life of a few raptors ? I haven’t done dead bird maths before so do please enlighten me…….and then we can talk about the impact on sea life of an oil spill and presumably prove that it is nothing compared to the lives of a few raptors again…

    What was that albatross in the cartoons called ? I forget…is it ‘Oily’ ? It looks like this, almost http://oilfreeotago.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/white-capped-albatross-1.jpg

    Now calm down and have some chamomile tea….and think before you make a point if your argument is easily ruined by something which is far worse which nobody talks about, unless it helps them make their point too.

    Anyway Gail , as far as I’m concerned you’re biased because of your raptor love….and I think you should be careful when you call the green industry out for being a load of liars, and yet then present links to the nuclear power industry as if they would never ever lie to Gail because she loves raptors….. Trust me Gail, engineers have been waiting for decades for the ‘better nuclear’, and it’s still a long long way off, and nobody wants to be the first to use it because they can’t charge as much for the electricity it generates as they can Uranium sourced electricity….funny that, dontcha think ?

  20. Gail Combs says:

    Chris Barron says:

    Gail, I don’t claim to be a conservationist, but I do believe that pollution is bad…..so I guess you don’t mind the oil soaked albatrosses washed up on beaches after an oil spill ? You never mentioned that so should I assume an albatross, or millions of gulls are not worth the life of a few raptors ? I haven’t done dead bird maths before so do please enlighten me…….and then we can talk about the impact on sea life of an oil spill and presumably prove that it is nothing compared to the lives of a few raptors again…

    It was YOUR BRITISH PETROLEUM that was NOT following the rules and cause the spill. It was the IDIOTIC FAR LEFT US president that sat on his thumbs for over TOW MONTHS and did nothing. An idiot who turned down help from other countries specifically the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations. Belgian and Dutch dredgers were designed for the work and were turned down even though the USA had nothing comparable.

    Oil has been leaking in the Gulf for eons and the bacteria has evolved to ‘eat the oil spill’ If technology had been brought to bare immediately the oil spill would not have been a major crisis. However since the LEFT wants to shut down oil, allowing the spill to continue for weeks without any effort to clean it up fit right into the agenda.

    Never let a Crisis go to waste and do your best to make it worse. ~ Barack Obama

    SeeHere’s The Real Reason America Refused International Help On The Oil Spill

    …a Dutch news site De Standaard also reported Belgian and Dutch dredgers have technology in-house to fight the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico….

    A Belgian group–DEME– contends it can clean up the oil in three to four months with specialty vessel and equipment, rather than an estimated nine months if done only by the U.S. The article noted there are no more than 5 or 6 of those ships in the world and the top specialist players are the two Belgian companies- DEME and De Nul – and their Dutch competitors.

    The U.S. does not have the similar technology and vessel to accomplish the cleanup task because those ships would cost twice as much to build in the U.S. than in the Far East. The article further criticizes this “great technological delay”….

    BP cost cutting and arrogant stupidity was the cause -from an Oil rigger:

    wws says:
    July 26, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    Son of Mulder: the root cause of the disaster is actually pretty mundane, and would have easily been avoided if BP had simply followed the SOP for deep well casing design that everyone else in the industry follows. Btw, I did oilfield work for quite a few years and have been onsite for more cement jobs than I can count or remember now.
    Don’t know if everyone is familiar with how wells are completed after they’re drilled – the wellbore is kept from collapsing in on itself by putting steel pipe (casing) in place immediately after the borehole is drilled, and then pumping cement down through a valve and the bottom of the casing and back up through the “annulus”, the gap between the steel pipe and the formation. Once this is in place the wellbore is safe and solid, and nothing can move out of the formation until zones of interest are perforated with explosive charges – and even after that the rest is still sealed off.
    Really deep wells need multiple strings of casing, one inside the other. (not going into the engineering reasons why this is so, but trust me, it is) Good practices dicate that the smaller diameter casings overlap extensively with the outer casing, manytimes all the way back to the wellhead, and the gap in between the casings is also cemented shut. No room left for fluids to migrate anywhere in between the strings.
    Also, when cement is pumped, it’s best practice to pump cement until the entire annulus is filled – a bit more expensive than may be absolutely necessary, but in the overall scheme of drilling a well a minor cost increase in exchange for absolute safety downhole.

    BP screwed up *Every* *Single* *Stage* of this operation, from the design right through the implementation. First, from the start they planned on doing the cheapest possible casing design they could get away with, with multiple strings but little overlap in between them. Stupid on a well with anticipated pressures like this! And to add to the problems, they pumped the bare minimum of cement they thought they could get away with on *every* cementing stage. (I think there were 5) resulting in a half-assed, hole and void filled cement job all the way from top to bottom of the wellbore. THEN they didn’t even bother to properly test the last stage before taking all the heavy pressure controlling mud out of the well!

    *Every* part of this well design was intended to cut financial corners as much as they thought they could away with, and they ended up a disaster directly because of their idiotic well design and idiotic decisions.
    The final insult – the afternoon before the explosion, multiple men on that rig heard the driller having a screaming phone conversation with the execs back in Houston. He was telling them that if they pulled the heavy fluid out now and replaced it with seawater, the whole damned rig was likely to blow up. They told him that THEY knew best, not him, and that he was being paid to shut up and do what he was told to do. So he shut up and did what he was told.
    3 hours later the rig blew up.

  21. Chris Barron says:

    I guess you’ve singled out a particular oil spill because you want to give the impression you’re edgy and ‘ all over it’….

    List of all oil spills (ones which have been reported officially at least)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

    Blame the Brits as much as you like…….but don’t forget everyone else….producers and consumers alike 😉

    Anyway, back to the drawing board, lets shrug our shoulders and say it don’t matter.

    Have two cups of chamomile now Gail, and perhaps a sedative ?

  22. Chris Barron says:

    People worry more about the fuel they put in their car than the fuel they put in their body. And then through diabetic enhanced waistlines say it’s nothing to do with them. When did we become so disconnected ?

    As I’ve only ever voted for nationalists, and for Scottish independence, I’ve been proven correct that the right doesn’t know it’s left from right.

    And I’ve also been proven right, yet again, that an American cannot manage more than three verbal or written transactions before blaming the other person’s politics on the fact that they don’t agree on a subject, because that’s so much easier than having to face the fact that either or both parties need to be more open minded.

    And as for food advice, I did teach cookery after I got professional chef qualifications, so to me these birdstrikes represent interesting lunch opportunities. http://www.george-heriots.com/news/1425_edinburgh-school-of-food-and-wine-visit-fhcs

    Cooking and engineering have always gone well together http://www.cookingforengineers.com/ll

    I think wind turbines ought to sometimes spin more quickly, BBQ anybody ?

    • I concur that offering unsolicited nutritional advice may be a completely apolitical nuisance, a simple product of a meddlesome disposition. I’ve also noticed that collectivism and presumptuous intrusiveness go hand in hand.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually I don’t much care for the Republicans (the right) here in the USA either. At least in the UK you have more parties, not that they are all that much different from each other. Peer behind the curtain and the big $$$ or £££ controls all parties not us peons.

      As for food, I am having a nice cup of herbal tea right now. I do not drinl coffee and generally eat grass-fed beef (from a friend) or my own mutton or chevon. I prefer local farmer raised veggies and fruit and I am putting in my own greenhouse. I stay away from carbs especially wheat (except for the ocassional Dreamfields*** 5 carb pasta or brown rice.) Any wine I have goes into the soup or beef stroganoff.

      Since my small business has me at a local farmers market/flea market most weekends I buy direct as much as possible. Micheal, the guy I normally buy veggies from, has contact within other organic farmers up and down the east coast and sells their products as well as his own. Another friend (my go to for livestock husbandry help) makes goat cheese and another friend I met in a small business class makes goat milk soap.

      For what it is worth I detest the large international corporate cartels and I really really was hoping the micro-mini thorium reactors would be viable and commercially available soon. I talked to my local electric co-op and they are looking into them. link

      As a chemist I much rather see petroleum products used as chemical precursors instead of being burned.

      **** For some reason Dreamfield’s gives me none of the problems I have with other wheat products.

  23. Gail Combs says:

    And another one bites the dust….

    4 Jan: Wind turbine collapses in Northern Ireland

    It is three years old and collapsed in a 15 mile an hour breeze.
    A 328-foot tall wind turbine worth more than £2 million has buckled and collapsed on a mountainside in Northern Ireland.
    Unconfirmed reports suggested the blades of the turbine had spun out of control – despite only light wind speeds – before the structure came crashing to the ground on Friday.
    Locals claimed the sound of the turbine hitting the mountain could be heard up to seven miles away from the Screggagh wind farm, near Fintona in County Tyrone.
    Some people compared it to an explosion while others claimed to have heard the sound of metal grinding throughout the day…
    The turbine was one of eight at the site, which opened in 2011 at a total cost of £26 million, implying a project cost of more than £3 million per turbine.
    The actual turbine equipment itself cost just over £2m, Screggagh wind farm’s owners said…
    The remaining seven turbines have been shut down while manufacturers investigate what went wrong. Wind speeds were “medium” or 10 to 12 metres per second, they added…
    German manufacturer Nordex is currently delivering a new, even bigger turbine design for other sites in the UK…
    In 2012 the company was fined £26,000 after admitting health and safety failings at a site in Stirlingshire where a 19-year-old worker fell 100ft down a turbine to his death…

    And in September 2013 an eight-year-old Nordex turbine in a German wind farm reportedly caught fire…

  24. Beale says:

    According to my calculations, the figures given add up to $5,919,600,981.

  25. Chris Barron says:

    Gail, your posting of collapsed wind turbines doesn’t bother me at all , strangely. Should I be upset ? The cost of damage is minimal and compares favourably with the cost of all the damage by oil, gas, coal and particularly nuclear engineering failures.

    The unit in the picture worth UKP2million, has a projected life output of UKP 3-4 million of electricity (as I’ve shown you before), so by installing a couple more the cost of this loss is negated.

    I think you have identified a fundamental problem with businessmen already Gail, they are trying to take over the wind industry too. A few corners cut here and there…..but it’s perfectly normal, and I doubt we will see a return to the days of the Ford Pinto fiasco, where a human life was considered to be worth less than a manufacturing recall of a car.

    If you were a UK taxpayer you would be glad you weren’t a US taxpayer, because your tax contribution towards the national debt interest is far more than ours.

    At least we’re in agreement, oil is too valuable a resource of useful compounds to simply burn it off….the cure for cancer could be in oil ….that would be funny……

    The odd thing about the internet is that we speak to other people who share the same planet, but with eyes in the goggles of merely our own country and I guess it is easy to forget to differentiate all the time.

    What I know is that here in Scotland we are close to 30% renewable powered (after turning off our nuclear (singular) reactor a few years ago), and that is rising fast due to the increased implementation of wind energy (the fastest growing sector here and proven to be profitable), and we continuously export upto 25% of all our electricity to other UK regions.

    We also sit on the UK’s largest fossil fuel reserves too.

    Happy days.

  26. Chris Barron says:

    SMS says:
    January 6, 2015 at 5:00 pm
    The French used to have 56 nuclear plants generating 79% of her power needs. Now they have 59. Doesn’t look like they changed their power mix. They can’t go to 50% without switching those nuclear power plants to coal. The cost to decommission a nuclear plant from nuclear to coal is going to cost the amount you show above. And they aren’t going to spend that amount of money with no economic return. The logic of your post makes no sense for the French.

    > To keep you abreast of the recent change in France’s direction…. http://www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20141015-french-parliament-votes-reduce-nuclear-power-export-market-thrives

    As for the amount of uranium available; there is much more than your quoted quantity.
    If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet’s economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption

    > “At current rates of consumption”. As soon as China has figured out how to distribute it’s power better (recent blackouts caused by poor distribution are a testament to that) do you think China will just not use more uranium ?

    I would suggest that no one can “accurately” estimate, and that there is more than 200 years. The NEA is only looking at proven reserves and not including Probable and Possible.

    > I agree that estimates will be only that, estimates. 200 years ? will you put your name to that figure for sure ?

    And we haven’t even discussed breeder reactors. This is the future of power generation once fossil fuels become uneconomic to extract.

    > We’ve been waiting over 50 years so far……..Even Germany’s recently built thorium reactor has run on uranium for nearly 90% of the time to this point, due to ‘issues’ with thorium. Are you promising it will be working and in place before 200 years time ?

    Not “sustainable” power. Sustainable power is a myth.
    > The sun shines forever (relative to our lifetimes at least), winds will blow and currents will flow in the seas for as many years in the future as they have already done so….and man may not be around in 10,000 years…….or even less……hopefully not as a result of putting too much belief in ‘unclear’ power.

    Boeing have done their homework on space based solar power…..it is sustainable (if by sustainable you mean it won’t ever run out ?)
    http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/boeing/solarsat.page

    But in the meantime – big fires, boiling water …how totally bloody retarded

  27. Gail Combs says:

    From Dr Robert Brown, a physicist at Duke University.

    rgbatduke says:
    August 22, 2013 at 12:05 am

    rgy A few small notes. Looking at the table, there is a difference between “reserves” and “recoverable resources”. We have 81 years of the former, but well over ten times that in recoverable resources. The former has proven to be a rather flexible and hence perhaps pointless number as it keeps changing as new resources are discovered and proven, which is why we haven’t reached “the end of oil” quite yet. In particular, there is a LOT of coal that is recoverable, and nothing prevents us from using a venerable process for converting coal into gasoline but price — the general availability of cheaper gasoline produced directly by refining crude oil.

    Second, you deliberately (I imagine) did not address nuclear energy and its reserves. Uranium is problematic — perhaps — because high pressure light water cooled reactors have technical risks of meltdown and associated risks of nuclear proliferation, but nevertheless there are at least hundreds, possibly tens of thousands thousands of years worth of Uranium reserves (the latter if we use breeder reactors and actually burn all of the Uranium instead of a pitifully small fraction of lightly enriched U-235). Of course breeder reactors that are efficient in this regard burn plutonium for most of the energy they produce, and plutonium is bomb material at this point for pretty much any country that gets it as the concept of implosion lenses and critical density is hardly either secret or technically inaccessible any more even to a very poor and backwards country. Still, we have 30,000 years of Uranium WITHOUT using Uranium from seawater from proven reserves if we use breeder reactors. If anyone works out how to economically extract Uranium from seawater we have an effectively infinite supply — humanity would evolve before we ran out, as the 60,000 years in seawater would be amplified by 100 to 6 million years. Admittedly, this is “at current consumption rates” so it would be less if we converted over to using fission reactors on a broad basis, but I think that it makes the 81 years entirely moot.

    Third, that doesn’t include Thorium, either. Thorium has a number of advantages over Uranium as a reactor fuel, the principle ones being that it is somewhat (but not decisively) more difficult to use as the basis for a clandestine bomb building program, it produces anywhere from 10 to 10,000 times less nuclear waste depending on the fuel cycle selected, and it is MUCH more difficult to make a thorium reactor “melt down” the way existing solid-fuel LWR Uranium designs can. The most advantage fuel cycle appears to be liquid salt reactor designs, which literally cannot melt down, have reduced (but nonzero) proliferation concerns, and which could literally be used to burn EXISTING nuclear waste and in the process would release a lot of the unburned energy in existing spent nuclear solid fuel (currently only around 1% of the available energy is being recovered in LWR Uranium non-breeder designs). Estimates of thorium reserves and available energy necessarily vary because only prototype reactors have been built of the various kinds and because little effort has been put into developing Thorium reserves (Thorium is currently a radioactive waste byproduct of mining rare earth metals and has only a handful of industrial/commercial applications as things now stand) but it is at LEAST tens of thousands of years. As a side effect of adopting Thorium as an energy fuel, we would completely solve the problems with global shortages of rare earths and hence e.g. rare earth magnets and exotic semiconductors, both essential components in other aspects of efficient energy production and transmission and utilization

    I know that we don’t necessarily agree on the eventual utility of solar power, but IMO there is also no question at all that over the next decade or two solar cell technology and engineering will progress to where the cost per watt at over the counter retail rates drops below fifty US cents (to as low, eventually, as ten cents or even less). This will correspond to wholesale prices that are roughly half of these retail prices. This will push the amortized cost recovery for large and small scale solar energy projects to well under a decade, with an expected plant lifetime of at least twice that, and IMO will make solar a no-brainer energy resource for the entire tropical and subtropical band. Although without efficient energy transportation and storage (which are both more speculative and less predictable) solar alone is not a viable single energy resource for a steady state global civilization such as the one you propose, they can easily eke out both nuclear and carbon-based resources and double or triple any of the numbers above for years of available energy…… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/21/double-the-burn-rate-scotty/#comment-1396823

    Yes I am pro-nuclear. Unlike those who push wind power but would refuse to live next to it due to the health problems, I can see a nuclear plant out my window as I type.

    Do YOU live right next door to a wind turbine as the people in that article do?

  28. Gail Combs says:

    This is the key problem with renewables.

    All energy is free. It was all created at the Big Bang
    Collecting energy and concentrating it in a form to do useful work has costs.
    Nature has collected energy and concentrated it in fossil fuels and radioactive materials.

    The high energy density in fossil fuels and radioactive materials means that it is easy to get a lot of useful energy by obtaining and using them because nature has done most of the energy collection for us. It is much more expensive to do the collection for ourselves.

    For example,
    fossil fuels are solar energy collected by plants using photosynthesis over geological ages then provided in dried, compressed volumes of material
    but
    biomass is solar energy collected by plants using photosynthesis over a few years then provided in wet, uncompressed volumes of material. [Conversion by photosynthesis is between 3% for C3 plants and 4.6% for C4 plants]

    With the exception of the solar energy obtainable from hydropower, all the sources of ‘renewable’ energy are so diffuse that it costs much more to collect it than the cost of obtaining similar amounts of useful energy from using fossil fuels and e.g. uranium.

    As for turbine maintenance, where are average figures for the cost of gear box replacements? Portsmouth, RI, got an estimate of $580,000 to $730,000 to replace one in a $3 million turbine that failed after 5 years of use.

    “Most turbines require significant repairs and even complete overhauls in the 5-7 year range.”
    TRIBOLOGY & LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGY

    http://www.stle.org/assets/news/document/cover_story_06-10.pdf

    Regarding the diminishing returns from renewables, ever hear of the ‘duck curve’?
    http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Energy-grid-duck-chart-used-to-wade-into-timing-4762718.php

    Richard, is a socialist who is an expert peer reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a technical advisor to several UK MPs as a consultant on matters concerning energy and the environment. (If you think I have teeth, don’t tangle with Richard he makes me look like a well mannered cream puff.)

    • Chris Barron says:

      Gail, you seem to be re posting other people’s contributions and in this case you appear to have merged two from different sources, without giving credit to either. Does this indicate a lack of your own opinion ?

      Having looked at what you did quote however, I do note there are several important omissions from the content. One comment refers to the use of wind power being problematic in Ireland….but it fails to mention the solution which has been implemented, leaving the reader with the impression that the problem is extant.

  29. Chris Barron says:

    Gail quoted “Most turbines require significant repairs and even complete overhauls in the 5-7 year range.”

    That’s music to my ears Gail…beautiful music.

    It would be stupid of the engineering business to put itself out of business by engineering a machine which has no further use for engineers.

    Why the rush to produce the most energy dense power supplier (albeit temporarily in the grand scheme of life) in the form of nuclear ? Why not make things which require lots of work to keep going, which gives something useful to do for dozens of generations to come.

    I like overhauls, repairs, rebuilds, refurbishments and renewal……some of us live for that, some of us have made a living for 30 years so far from that sort of thing….and the majority of the public seem to have appreciated and benefited from it.

    Gail said “Richard, is a socialist who ….” what does his political stance, as you view it, matter ? Politicians from every walk of life need electricity just the same…..He advises who ? The IPCC ? Speaks volumes really 😉

  30. Chris Barron says:

    I’m surprised to hear that you think !

  31. Gail Combs says:

    I have no problem with solar and windmills (NOT turbines) in niche markets. As I said much earlier windmills have been used for thousands of years to bring water to the surface. For third world countries they can be made of local wood and local cloth. If you want a really nice example of ‘Sustainability’ (I really really hate that word) See Leucaena leucocephala The knowhow has been available since the 1970s – over forty years ago, (I also remember reading about it.) but bringing the third world out of poverty is NOT what those in control want.

    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.” -John Holdren (1973), Obama’s Science Czar

    “It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.” -George Monbiot, UK Ecojournalist

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, ex-senator and now President of the UN Foundation. Wirth is the B@$t@rd who played a dirty trick on congress that lead to the ratification of the UN Frame Work on Climate Change.

    The Founder of the UN Foundation and CNN (USA MSM) Ted Turner was much more blunt in the plans for humanity.
    “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

    You do not have to be an ‘engineer’ to understand the push for renewables.

    #1. Has transferred massive amounts of wealth from the poor to the rich.

    #2. Has hurt the economy to the extend German manufacturing finally issued and ultimatum to the German government.

    #3. Is KILLING PEOPLE. Around 3,000 per year in the UK alone.

    REFERENCES:
    The transfer of wealth
    ADM profits soar 550 percent as ethanol margins improve
    (wwwDOT)biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/08/04/adm-profits-soar-550-percent-as-ethanol-margins-improve/
    That is just one example in my library but the IMF presents the big picture:

    In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012).
    (wwwDOT)imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/09/dervis.htm

    Industry dissatisfied
    Of course most just leave and head to China or India where they are building coal and nuclear plants.
    Germans grow skeptical over shift to renewables
    (wwwDOT)dw.de/germans-grow-skeptical-over-shift-to-renewables/a-17013961

    From der Spiegel

    Even a major millisecond in voltage fluctuation can cause damage at large industrial firms. Sudden fluctuations in Germany’s power grid are causing major damage to a number of industrial companies. While many of them have responded by getting their own power generators and regulators to help minimize the risks, they warn that companies might be forced to leave if the government doesn’t deal with the issues fast.

    I worked in industry and those voltage fluctuation, brownouts and blackouts were a constant headache…. I never knew the plant manager could run so fast.

    Germany’s Homemade Energy Crisis Threatens Industry (Link is now dead – Surprize? NOT)

    “Green” Britain gets the jitters amid fears of going dark brown

    I am sure you are already aware of the fuel poverty and the poor freezing to death in the UK.

  32. Gail Combs says:

    Chris Barron says:
    “…… Does this indicate a lack of your own opinion ?”
    A lack of training in typing coupled with arthritis makes me very reluctant to type especially when it is cold and we are getting a weather change. Why retype when I agree with someone?

    • Chris Barron says:

      And yet everything you have typed so far as yourself seems to be without a mistake.
      Surely more typing will help to keep you warm and your fingers mobile ? It works for me

      • Daavid A says:

        I notice Chris prefers to comment more on the style and source of what is written, rather then on the content od what is written. (Always a tell in finding someone with an entrenched position, which will not change regardless of facts.)

        • Chris Barron says:

          You missed the point there David.
          I was being called a hypocrite by someone who says wind doesn’t work but they use it every day.

          Just a bit of ‘pot and kettle’, nothing more or less

  33. Gail Combs says:

    Since our newest Trojan Troll is so tenacious I figure we should know who is most likely is.

    Chris Barron: Operations Director at Rhead Group

    Here is an article he wrote:
    http://www.rheadgroup.com/renewable-energy-programmes-skilled-expertise-shortage-barrier

    (Sure sounds like him)

    So who is the Rhead Group?

    The Rhead Group is a privately owned consultancy providing professional services for the delivery of international construction programmes. We currently manage a portfolio worth over four billion dollars annually on behalf of clients in the energy transmission, power generation, water, defence, air & maritime and transport sectors from our offices in the UK, South Africa and the UAE.

    Our knowledge of the oil and gas sectors, and of the development of on and offshore pipeline networks including compression facilities like those used to capture, transport and store carbon underground, is proving invaluable and the Rhead Group is playing a pivotal part in the collaboration between government and industry in the development and deployment of CCS technology.
    http://www.ccsassociation.org/about-us/our-members/rhead-group/

    That blurb was from the Carbon Capture & Storage Association. So who is the Carbon Capture & Storage Association?

    The staff of Carbon Capture & Storage Association

    Honorary President: Lord Oxburgh [of Climategate whitewashing fame]

    Chairman: Michael Gibbons, 2CO Energy

    Vice Chairman: Tim Hill, E.ON

    Vice Chairman: Peter Whitton, Progressive Energy….

    MEMBERS:

    CCSA’s members are drawn from across industry and include specialist companies in manufacturing & processing, power generation, engineering & contracting, oil, gas & minerals as well as a wide range of support services to the energy sector such as law, banking, insurance, consultancy and project management. [I left out the few areas Rhead Group is not involved in.]
    Carbon storage
    CCS TLM
    Maersk Oil
    Nottingham Centre for CCS
    Rhead Group
    Schlumberger
    Senergy

    Consultancy
    AMEC Foster Wheeler
    CCS TLM
    Lloyd’s Register
    MMI Engineering
    Poyry Energy Consulting
    Rhead Group
    Schlumberger
    Senergy
    SGS United Kingdon

    Manufacturing and contracting
    Alstom
    AMEC Foster Wheeler
    BOC
    CCS TLM
    Clean Energy Systems
    Rhead Group
    Senergy
    Siemens

    Oil and gas
    AMEC Foster Wheeler
    BG Group
    BP
    CCS TLM
    Chevron
    Clean Energy Systems
    Gassnova
    Maersk Oil
    Rhead Group
    Sasol
    Senergy
    Shell
    Statoil

    Power generation
    AMEC Foster Wheeler
    BP
    Drax Power
    E.ON
    EDF Energy
    ESB
    Progressive Energy
    Rhead Group

    Transportation
    AMEC Foster Wheeler
    CCS TLM
    Maersk Oil
    National Grid
    Rhead Group
    (wwwDOT)ccsassociation.org/about-us/our-members/

    A vested interest much?

    • Chris Barron says:

      No not much, I make very little money from these associations. I do much better from my links to Al Gore and Donald Bumsfelt.

      Barack Obama’s Christmas card was very well received.

      I’ve had my friends at the NSA download the contents of your computer’s hard drive……it’s not pleasant at all.

      Hands up, don’t shoot, good day to you….

      • Daavid A says:

        Chris descends rapidly into comments utterly devoid of substance.

        • Chris Barron says:

          David you missed that point too….I am not the person I was accused of being but when in Rome do as they do I reckon.
          Are you really called Daavid, or David ? Or Bob…..

          This thread was supposed to be about how green energy is dead and yet in the face of evidence that it doesn’t even seem to be suffering from a mild stroke the clan mentality took over…..

  34. Chris Barron says:

    What can I say ?

    hahaha

    You’re so very wrong but in a way I’m flattered to have a stalker…..

    Here’s my actual Linked In profile
    https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=297426347&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile

    And if you’re a Mensan say hi here
    https://www.mensa.org/user/2804

    You’re a paranoid loony Gail, but nice with it !

  35. Chris Barron says:

    …and by the way, you only had to ask !

  36. kuhnkat says:

    Chris Barron is a mensa type and is stupid enough to argue FOR energy sources that are appropriate for only small scale and off grid use due to energy density. Will wonders never cease.

    A watermelon is a watermelon is a watermelon. Oh, and they lie continuously to promote their agenda.

    • Chris Barron says:

      Looking at today’s live view of the energy mix, Green sources (mostly wind) amount to 14.8%, while nuclear sits at 17.5%

      http://nationalgrid.stephenmorley.org/

      Add in grid storage and when the wind drops (not likely for weeks yet) and wind power is producing more than coal did when it was the same age as mainstream wind is.

      Those figures are for the whole of the UK….the breakdown for Scotland is significantly more in favour of green energy, with no nuclear at all.

      Is green energy actually dead, or is it just being born

      • rah says:

        Of course you would not think of adjusting your numbers based on which had the most government assistance. Wind farms that aren’t economically sustainable without government assistance will die. And any way you cut it they will remain nothing but a supplementary part of the grid. You would have to cover the entire state of Connecticut with wind farms to supply the current energy of needs of the NYC metropolitan area and then they could only do so when the wind was blowing.

        The only reason why green energy has grown is because the tax payers have off set a great deal of the start up costs. It remains to be seen how much of what has been built can be sustained when the flow of money and tax breaks from the government ends. If the wind farms had been an economically viable alternative in the first place then why did the private sector jump into the business and start up major operations all over the place without government money as did most of the coal generation facilities did?

        • Chris Barron says:

          So your opinion is that the British nuclear industry the startup costs of which were paid for by the government, the huge initial outlay and setup costs, was done not using taxpayer money, but instead the government had it gifted to them from somewhere ?

          Interesting !

          I think you need to bear in mind that the subsidies given to wind are fair in light of the huge sosums already given to nuclear and the fossil fuel subsidies.

          in the US for example, coal subsidies top 5 times what wind subsidies have done so far. DOE figures lie I suppose ?

        • rah says:

          I didn’t say a damned word about nuclear which had it’s roots in both the US and UK in weapons production. The comparison is the the gorilla the room. Fossil fuels produce far more MW than nucs or wind in either nation. That is what so called “green Energy” is supposed to replace. Not nucs.

          And look up the return in megawatts per Euro or dollar. You know damned well the rather limited amounts given fossil fuel generation are nothing when compared on a cost vr benefit basis to what has been provided wind. Economically there is just no argument for wind in most places.

        • gator69 says:

          Fossil fuels are not subsidized, that is just another leftist lie.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Mr. Mensa does the usual leftard shuffle trying to misdirect to Nuclear stats. Sadly for this Mr. Mensa the nuke costs are overinflated by Gubmint interference. Show me where the Wind and Solar farms are forced to set aside enough cash to return the environment back to a safe normal state as Nuclear is?!?!

          How about the costs of every Mensa type suing every time the Geiger counter hiccups when virtually ALL of releases form nuke plants will never cause any harm?? When the ecowhacktards realize how bad these supposedly green/renewable sources are and start litigating against every step even before the shovels hit the ground we will see the vendors start to bail like they did with Nukes.

          In the mean time Mensa person, you have NOT talked about energy density and how it is one of the Achilles heels of renewables. They take enormous amounts of land and pollute it to the detriment of the environment. Isn’t the environment what this is all about Oh Mensa Person?!?!?

      • gator69 says:

        Followed your link.

        “What is the Balancing Mechanism?”

        “As indicated above, the Balancing Mechanism is one of the key aspects of NETA. It is the mechanism by which the System Operator procures commercial services (Balancing Services) from generators and suppliers, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC) and the Grid Code, in order to maintain security of the electricity supply across the transmission network. These commercial services are represented by Offers to sell energy (increase generation or decrease demand) and Bids to buy energy (decrease generation or increase demand), respectively, which are submitted by the participants in the Balancing Mechanism. Acceptance of a Bid or an Offer by the System Operator represents a binding contract with the generator or supplier which is cash settled through the systems and services managed by ELEXON.”

        Offers to sell and buy, not generation. Government mandates and subsidies, not actual production.

        • Chris Barron says:

          So what services do you suppose generators and electricity suppliers provide….if it isn’t generated electricity ?
          “It is the mechanism by which the System Operator procures commercial services (Balancing Services) from generators and suppliers”

          System operator = National Grid

          You seem to be suggesting that a supplier will bid to form a contract with National Grid, but that they don’t actually provide any electricity generation……that’s literally money for nothing then…..no !

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, money for nothing, like the $154,000,000,000 billion wasted in the US alone on green energy companies that went bankrupt. Let the market decide.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Gator, where are the documents showing the value of subsidies and the method used for their payment, if they aren’t tax breaks. The IRS is issuing tax breaks for wind and you’re saying they aren’t tax breaks…..Hhhhmmm…who to believe ?

          Also you one minute say
          $154,000,000,000 billion , and then just
          $154,000,000,000

          A pinch of salt gets applied 😉

          Haven’t you seen your national debt by the way…..”Look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves ? ” It didn’t work !
          http://www.usdebtclock.org/

        • gator69 says:

          Odd you would mention the debt, it certainly does not concern you.

          Enough strawmen. Fossil fuels are not subsidized. Quit lying.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers.”

          Subsidies are a collection of measures and take different forms created on a per-need basis, nowhere has anyone stated that a subsidy is not a tax break….a tax break can easily be sconsidered to be a subsidy and is an interchangeable term.

          Even Harvard people use the terms similarly http://harvardmagazine.com/2014/01/the-fix-in-fossil-fuels

          The word subsidy relates to the specific device which was applied through the action of subsidisation…subsidisation takes lots of forms….a handout is subsidisation…a tax break is subsidisation…enforced price setting is subsidisation…..

          Lol, 2 nations seperated by a common language indeed !

        • gator69 says:

          Even Harvard! Do Say! 😆

          Any more liberal bastions to which you wish to refer.

          sub·si·dy:ˈsəbsədē/ noun

          1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

          Harvard needs a dictionary, please won’t you donate today?

        • gator69 says:

          “Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace.

        • Daavid A says:

          Gator, do you mean that giving other peoples money to a company is a subsidy, but TAKING LESS money FROM them because of standard business deductions is only a tax reduction.
          Well now that makes perfect sense. Why does Chris lie about these things?

          Chris, look at all the failed companies above Now tell me how much tax they paid, and tell me how much tax all the wind and solar companies pay.
          Now tell me how much tax oil companies pay, and include all their employees personal income tax, and all the federal and state petrol taxes, and just to get a bigger clue, tell me how much tax the retires from the oil companies pay, including all those funds invested in big oil.

        • Chris Barron says:

          David, are you including Enron in your calculations ? The third largest US bankruptcy since 1980.

          Pacific gas and electric (the fifth largest bankruptcy in the same period)

          Texaco (The sixth largest)

          You don’t mention the cost of those losses which have nothing to do with wind sourced electricity.

          About all we can conclude is that ‘Even wind power companies can go bust too”

          Just as we can conclude that they can be as successful as other companies too.
          Take one ‘New age traveller’ (hippy type) in 1995 with a single turbine and…… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotricity

        • gator69 says:

          David, leftists only have lies, and half truths upon which to base their claims. Redefining words and terms, like a good Wormtongue.

          He who controls language controls thought.

      • Gail Combs says:

        From your link
        “The National Grid is Great Britain’s electrical power transmission network, distributing the power generated in England, Scotland, and Wales, and importing and exporting power between Great Britain and Ireland, France, and the Netherlands.”

        I already linked to an article about Poles and the Czechs cutting their connections to the German grid because of this instability problem. Also part of that 15.8% is hydro:

        Hydroelectric – 1.01GW – 2.4%
        Wind – 5.74GW – 13.4%
        with pumped stroage to even out the load abit.
        Pumped storage – 1.44GW – 3.4%

        So without the load evener (pumped storage) you get 10% wind and have to shunt some off to other countries or import to balance the load.

        E.M. comments: Is The UK Grid Approaching Instability?

        Given that the UK is now paying industries and wind farms to shut down, I guess he was correct.
        Wind farms paid £1m a week to switch off: New figures show £53m was given to the wind industry last year to keep turbines switched off to regulate electricity supplied to National Grid

        Big winter freeze ‘to shut down UK factories’

        ….Critics derided the policy as a “shambles” and said the system was a “slow-motion car crash”.

        National Grid’s winter outlook, unveiled at an Ofgem seminar in London, revealed the capacity margin this winter was expected at 4.1 per cent, the narrowest since 2006-7.

        The measure – the gap between generating capacity and peak demand – could narrow to 2.8 per cent in the event of bad UK weather of the kind last seen in February and March 2010.

        This would see National Grid unable to meet its “basic reserve requirement” of spare capacity needed to run the system and forced to implement contingency arrangements. Earlier this year it signed deals with 431 industrial sites which will be paid to shut down at peak hours.

        The energy picture has worsened since the summer when measures were first set out. Fires have resulted in the shutdown of the Ironbridge power station in Shropshire and the temporary closure of Ferrybridge in West Yorkshire. Another power station, at Barking, is also to close, while a planned return to service for four EDF nuclear reactors in Morecambe, Lancashire, and Hartlepool, Teesside, will see them come back at only 75 per cent capacity….

        • Chris Barron says:

          Did you have a question Gail ?

          Shunting power between grids has been going on since the interconnectors were completed and there are clear commercial boundaries at each interconnector.

          I don’t see the controversy there ?

        • kuhnkat says:

          “Did you have a question Gail ?

          Shunting power between grids has been going on since the interconnectors were completed and there are clear commercial boundaries at each interconnector.

          I don’t see the controversy there ?”

          Apparently the Mensa guy is too stupid to see the problem. Which is that land of windmills that is used to sell how wonderful whirligigs are?? It seems the propaganda was that they produced 20% of their power from wind. Of course, as usual, it turned out that this was a distortion of the facts. Wind does not produce the majority of its power during peak use periods. Due to that minor issue that wonderful country has to sell its excess wind generation at below cost into the rest of the EU interconnect. Of course, as the other countries ALSO are increasing their wind which also produces when they don’t need it…

          Basically Mensa guy either you are a paid propagandist or you are really a moron pretending to be a Mensa guy.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Kuhnkat says ” Wind does not produce the majority of its power during peak use periods. ”

          Kuhnkat has some sort of mythical almanac which predicts when the wind will blow. (But probably cannot provide a link for it)

          Kuhnkat, the fact is that peak demand is around midday, and also about 17:30hrs each day,
          Kuhnkat replies “But the wind *never* blows it’s hardest at those times ever”

          😉

        • Chris Barron says:

          As Kuhnkat would have it, the times of peak demand, according to this graph (German 24 hour demand data) periods of high demand are always periods of low wind. Guaranteed

          Kuhnkat the wind-whisperer 😉

        • Chris Barron says:

          Maybe I was a little obtuse , heh 😉

          Selling electricity at below cost ? Hmmm, what is the cost of electricity ? It depends on the source.

          Nuclear is the cheapest to produce, but has the highest whole life cost of all existing sources of electricity

          Wind usually turns a profit within 8-12 years without subsidies, and in 4-8 years with subsidies.

          The profit comes at a time when electricity is being shunted over the grid, and sold for use in other regions.

          The important question should seem self evident now – if wind turbines are profitable AND the electricity which is produced at off-peak times is being sold to other regions for use during their times of higher demand…..what incorrect price have you used in your costings of electricity, and the market spot price, Kuhnkat ?

        • Chris Barron says:

          Also it is important to note, Kuhnkat, that the selling price of electricity for all producers swings wildly during any 24hr period.

          For example on a cold windy day, peak price can reach £300 /MWh in the UK and yet 8 hours later, it can fall to £50 /MWh

          Would you stick your neck out and say that when a coal or a gas powered station produces electricity at £50 /MWh it is not making a loss ?

  37. Gail Combs says:

    Ain’t that the truth kuhnkat. And when they start losing they resort to name calling.

    • rah says:

      And then the smart ones disappear. Lets see if Chris Barron is a smart one.

    • Chris Barron says:

      What about when they waste their time trying to find out who someone is (when culturally the norm is to just ask them) , then they find the wrong person, make a song and dance about it…..and walk off going ‘ain’t that the truth’

      If you must know you were really right in the first place…. yeah I’m a chairman , CEO, figure of the new dawn or whatever it is you fear…..My best friend Prince Andrew is in a spot of hot water so I must go help him out with an alibi, see ya !

      • Gail Combs says:

        Not a waste of time at all.

        As Skeptics we have had to deal with the likes of David Appell, a PAID journalist with a physics degree who comes here to spout complete nonsense often under various pseudonyms. Many others who have a vested interest in the ideas they are promoting show up at various websites all the time.

        Speaking of doing a quicky look on the internet, here is the digging done by Greenpeace and Desmog on Dr. Richard Lindzen

        However the Green Zealots take it quite a bit further tha a quick look on the internet. Greenpeace FOIA’d UVA for the e-mail correspondence of Pat Michaels as well as a retired professor, Fred Singer. According to Greenpeace, the only documents UVA released were Michaels’ CV and a spreadsheet listing three grants. Anything else, UVA told Greenpeace, would require a base charge of $4,000, regardless of what was produced, and no cap on how much it might cost. The university was however quite willing to cough up any and all information on these two people for a price. Considering Greenpeace brings in an annual revenue topping $368 million, $4000 is peanut for them.

        In the same time frame Cuccinelli has sought Mann’s documents as part of an investigation into whether Mann violated Virginia’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA). Was UVA ‘quite willing to cough up and and all information on these two people for a price?’ NO, instead UVA hired outside counsel to fight Cuccinelli’s demands. The legal bills for the initial defense cost UVA more than $350,000, paid for through private donations.

        SO Gander met Goose. If you want to step into the ‘Climate Wars’ expect people to want to know who you are and if you have a vested interest. We know there are plenty of people making lots of money, to the tune of trillions by lying their heads off.

        This one done on me I find absolutely hysterical because it illustrates the low level of intelligence of the Climate Scientists who intentionally set-up websites to counter the likes of Anthony Watts, Jo Nova, E.M. Smith and others who can think rings around them. (See the Climategate e-mails where setting up blogs is discussed.)

        There was another one I recently link to here on ?SkS? but that one got taken down in the last couple of months after I laughed at it. Tamino BTW is Grant Foster who has writen several highly cited CAGW climate science papers.

        If you can not figure out why I think that piece is funny then maybe you need to give up your Mensa membership.

        BTW you are not paranoid if they really are out to get you. In this case tax you into poverty, turn off your electric and threaten your food supply.

        Beside I am not a Paranoid, I am a Narapoid.

        • Chris Barron says:

          And what any of that has to do with proving wind generation doesn’t work is beyond me….

          Tell me more about you…..

  38. buhhhday says:

    Fourth comment, hopefully this one is actually allowed to be posted. I know you can read this, Steve (it’s you or a moderator, I don’t think it matters either way). Grow up and let people actually post on your site even if they disagree with you. I am saying this directly to you, it’s absolutely ridiculous. I don’t care if someone disagrees with me, I still value their opinion because everyone’s input is valuable. You are treating me as though mine is not, and by doing so you are only driving me further from reading anything on your site. I doubt that’s your goal, since most bloggers like when people read their blogs.

    To respond quickly to this without going too in depth (since if I do this won’t be posted (it won’t be anyway, is my guess)), I hardly think a low gas price means green energy is dead. It means we’re in a price war with OPEC. Which honestly, they can fight pretty hard. They’re rather well funded.

    I would hope you aren’t suggesting we stick to fossil fuels, as that is the message I get from this. Because, as we all learned in elementary school, those are non renewable energy sources. I don’t know about you, but I plan on being alive for another seventy or eighty years and I’d really like to have a stable energy source. A renewable one.

    Thanks, Steve, for caring about my generation. Glad you want us to have a decent standard of living. Not like those crazy people in the green (RENEWABLE) energy field. Only by using non renewable fossil fuels will we be able to progress as a society.

    Progress right into the ground, that is.

  39. Chris Barron says:

    Kuhnkat “Chris Barron is a mensa type and is stupid enough to argue FOR energy sources that are appropriate for only small scale and off grid use due to energy density. ”

    No, I’m smart enough to defend a supply type which has it’s place in the bigger picture. Rather than believe the hype printed in newspapers.

    We have a company in the UK which started with 1 turbine, when it made enough profit to sustain the finance of installing another turbine then another was installed….when enough money was made another, and another were added, and so on. Slow but reliable growth like this is what most businesses dream of, but where things go wrong is when large groups look to make a large fast profit, seek the maximum subsidy and additional finance possible and then base their financial model on maximum profit from day 1

    So far in this discussion there has been no mention at all of grid storage solutions. It’s as if we forget that electricity can be stored. In fact, in the UK their is a ban on the amount of grid storage which can be used, simply because the power companies don’t want people charging the storage system at the time in the day when the price is rock bottom, only to sell it back onto the grid when the price is high at peak demand. This doesn’t mean that grid storage does not work, it means that the business model rejects it, which is a different issue entirely. Again, grid storage can be labour intensive….which means more semi skilled jobs are required (and can be supported)

    The whole program of storage falls under the category of ‘load balancing’ which are the fast startup short cycle devices scattered all over the grid which are brought on line to meet rapid demand fluctuations (planned and umplanned increases alike).

    It’s not bonfires boiling pots of water, and just mentioning the word ‘hybrid’ causes many people to freak out

    What is a typical non-Mensa type ? Do they prefer to hide in anonymity ?

  40. Chris Barron says:

    Regarding subsidies…

    A report covering 2002 – 2008 calculated the following (for the US)

    The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

    Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
    Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
    Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

    The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:

    Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
    Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
    Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)

    Renewable electricity, of which wind generation forms only a proportion, is one of the smallest benefactors. The other renewable subsidies were alcohol/ethanol related !

    And from … http://www.iea.org/publications/worldenergyoutlook/resources/energysubsidies/

    The IEA, within the framework of the World Energy Outlook, has been measuring fossil-fuel subsidies in a systematic and regular fashion for more than a decade. Its analysis is aimed at demonstrating the impact of fossil-fuel subsidy removal for energy markets, climate change and government budgets. The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $409 billion in 2010, up from $300 billion in 2009, with subsidies to oil products representing almost half of the total. Changes in international fuel prices are chiefly responsible for differences in subsidy costs from year to year. The increase in the global amount of subsidy in 2010 closely tracked the sharp rise in international fuel prices.

    And from … http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

    How much money does the U.S. government provide to support the oil, gas and coal industries?

    In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually yet these don’t even include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

    And all about fossil fuel subsidies in general… http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2014/07/OCI_US_FF_Subsidies_Final_Screen.pdf

    So when yiou whinge about a few billion of subsidies for wind, which has only started happening relatively recently, remember there is still a lot of catching up to be done before you even get in the same numberspace as all the subsidies paid to all the previous generators and suppliers

    • gator69 says:

      Fossil fuels are not subsidized. Do you not know the difference between a tax break/credit and a subsidy? Are you dumb or just dishonest?

      • Chris Barron says:

        So apparently, the tax breaks given to wind are not subsidies ?

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/09/02/the-irs-is-giving-away-13-billion-a-year-in-wind-energy-subsidies-without-congressional-authorization/

        Quote “The main federal handout for the wind energy industry has grown considerably despite the fact that it expired at the end of 2013”

        So wind doesn’t get any subsidy at all , since the start of 2014 ?
        What’s your beef now, kid ?

        • gator69 says:

          For someone who claims to be so smart, you honestly are unaware of mandated green energy purchases? 😆

          The $154,000,000,000 pissed away by one country wasn’t enough?

          And again brainiac, tax breaks/credits are not subsidies. Quit conflating terms in order to create strawmen.

        • Daavid A says:

          Gator, do you mean that giving other peoples money to a company is a subsidy, but TAKING LESS money FROM them because of standard business deductions is only a tax reduction.
          Well now that makes perfect sense. Why does Chris lie about these things?

          Chris, look at all the failed companies above Now tell me how much tax they paid, and tell me how much tax all the wind and solar companies pay.
          Now tell me how much tax oil companies pay, and include all their employees personal income tax, and all the federal and state petrol taxes, and just to get a bigger clue, tell me how much tax the retires from the oil companies pay, including all those funds invested in big oil.

  41. Chris Barron says:

    RAH – “And look up the return in megawatts per Euro or dollar. You know damned well the rather limited amounts given fossil fuel generation are nothing when compared on a cost vr benefit basis to what has been provided wind. Economically there is just no argument for wind in most places.”

    $21.6 billion last year ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/fossil-fuel-subsidies_n_5572346.html )

    Compared to $13 billion for wind http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/09/02/the-irs-is-giving-away-13-billion-a-year-in-wind-energy-subsidies-without-congressional-authorization/

    Wind doesn’t need military support, fossil fuel does…..what price military support, RAH ? $166 billion per year is a figure which seems credible when audited.

    You do the maths your way, I guessing you haven’t gone decimal yet ?

    • rah says:

      Bull crap! Your premise is that it’s all about the oil when coal and natural gas are the fossil fuels that run the generating stations? Gee Mensa member almost all of our imports of LNG come from Canada! http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/importsexports/annual/ and the little bit we get from the ME comes from Yemen, Qatar, and Egypt.
      But what can one expect from someone that uses the Huffington post for reference on energy?
      So your “military” cost is BS. So where you go from there?

      • Chris Barron says:

        where are your figures disproving the military cost of securing oil, in fact, for supporting all energy supplies ?

        You make an assertion based on belief and then draw an unrelated and unsubstantiated conclusion ? And you think that makes a truth

        My figure for the military cost is not from the Huff post…..and would you suggest that because you decline to give an actual figure for the military cost that one does not exist ? ‘Magical thinking’ at it’s best

        The cost of $166 billion included recent Persian Gulf activity, which I don’t think is an unreasonable inclusion

        Even older figures, such as this one from 2007 suggest various figures, most of them greater than the tax breaks given to wind generation alone
        http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/11_05_07_Cost_ProtectingOil_PersianGulf_Delucchi.aspx

        It’s as if you think protecting a valuable asset costs nothing at all

        • rah says:

          I did not address oil because oil has little to do as a fuel for electrical energy generation these days. IOW it is off the subject matter which we were discussing. You know, wind farms vr. Fossil fuels for energy generation? Why do I have to keep bringing you back to that? But come to think of it maybe in your mind it does, since more than likely in most parts of these United States, your electric car or hybrid will be charged using electrical energy produced by either coal or LNG. You DO drive a Prius hybrid or some other hybrid don’t you? Oh surely you do because if you don’t it would be a wee bit hypocritical wouldn’t it? Kinda like driving a Kia to work in a Ford plant?

        • Chris Barron says:

          So you’re calling me a hypocrite, but on the other hand some of the electricity used to power the machine you’re typing on right now comes from wind….but somehow it isn’t viable ?

          Here in the UK (like many other countries) we have a dependence on oil for some of our electricity generation….I’ve linked to the National Grid site where the reports which detail the exact amounts can be found.

          I have mentioned gas and coal in some of my previous messages too, so there’s no need to pretend I’m unsure about how electricity is generated.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “I did not address oil because oil has little to do as a fuel for electrical energy generation these days. IOW it is off the subject matter which we were discussing.You know, wind farms vr. Fossil fuels for energy generation? ”

          Oil is not a fossil fuel ? That’s news to me

        • Chris Barron says:

          Rah I don’t drive a Prius or a hybrid, no, I have more interest in my electric motorcycle

          The 840 ex-laptop batteries were farmed from packs which were considered to have failed, the sort of pack you will throw away if your laptop reports that the battery pack no longer holds charge….all in all it cost me very little to build and pennies per mile to ride.

          I also have a gas powered bike, so does that make me the owner of hybrid range of vehicles ? 😉

        • Chris Barron says:

          ” if you don’t it would be a wee bit hypocritical wouldn’t it? Kinda like driving a Kia to work in a Ford plant?”

          So you are now saying that if you drove a Ferrari to work in a Ford plant you’re a wee bit of a hypocrite……I guess if you worked for an electricity company you would rip out your gas oven because you wouldn’t want to be a wee bit hypocritical…..and I don’t suppose you eat seafood because you don’t live in the sea, that would be hypocritical ?

          I am almost in a state of disbelief, that a person who lives in a land which hails freedom of choice as being a fundamental pillar of society, would strive to restrict choice at seemingly any tiny opportunity…..just because he bought a Kia he isn’t allowed to work at Ford ?

          I work for Canon, but my DSLR cameras are Nikon. Am I a hypocrite or just someone who had bought Nikon camera’s before he ever got a job with Canon and still find the Nikons work well enough ? It’s not really a question for you, I know the answer already

  42. He’s contentious, he never shuts up, & he has no social skills. Yup, definitely a mensan.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Reminds me of Morris a mensan I knew in college, a life size inflatable doll, and a recording of Jeanie screaming her head off rigged to his dorm door. Back then it was no members of the opposite sex in the dorms and he was in one of twin dorms across from each other one all male, one all female….

    • Chris Barron says:

      I used to be wishy washy, shut up when told to and thought making friends mattered.
      Thank heavens for freedom

  43. Chris Barron says:

    Subsidy “A subsidy is a form of financial or in kind support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy”!

    Note – *In kind support”

    When you give children pocket money you subsidise them. They get older and you buy them a car, you are subsidising them. They get a job, live at home, but don’t pay their way fully, you allow them to pay only a partial amount towards the resources they take from your home (like a tax break) and so you are still subsidising them.

    Low income workers get tax breaks, and every right winger complains because ‘We are subsidising those who can’t be bothered to work harder’……. A tax break to the poor = subsidisation

    When something is subsidised there has to be an instrument of that subsidisation, and it’s name is “the subsidy”…and nowhere in language books is it written that ‘subsidy’ refers concisely to a specific and limited government handout . Only in a topical dictionary would you find that , or in the terms of reference of a report relating specifically to government activity.

    A tax break creates subsidisation of the profit making ability of the recipient, and therefore the tax break is the subsidy

    Thanks for the English language lesson, but it really wasn’t necessary

  44. Chris Barron says:

    Subsidy – 1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

    A subsidy is a sum of money. I totally agree.
    Is it a cash lump sum ? Is it a concession on future collected tax ? Is it a rebate paid on a pro rota basis for previous payments to the government ? It can be either or all of these, plus some others besides.

    A subsidy is just a sum of money, not relating to any one single position on the balance sheet

    • gator69 says:

      “a sum of money granted by the government”

      A tax break is not ‘granted’ money, as the money does not belong to the government in the first place. If I let you keep $50 of your own money, did I give you money? No.

      Enough of the doublespeak lefty.

      • Chris Barron says:

        If you want businesses running your country then you’re in luck, they must already be doing it if you think like that.

        The government tax break subsidises the profit making ability of the company, by taking money from the people (because it leaves the tax system) and flows back to the shareholders of the company. in turn , the people are subsidising that company.

        If tax breaks to companies are not private profit subsidies then every tax payer can make a claim for a share of the company’s private profit……which of course, never happens.

        Your country has laws to tax companies for their operations in order to generate revenue which is for the use of benefiting society. if the government does not collect as much because it gives a more preferential rate to one company than another then society has less money for their benefit, which is how the public are subsidising the company involved

        • gator69 says:

          The money never left the company, so it is not part of the tax structure. Period. Enough hand waving. By your standards, the government can claim anyone has not paid their fair share, and come for whatever they want.

          Now, when the government collects tax revenue, and then distributes it to companies, that is a subsidy. In your world, all money belongs to government, and they decide who gets to keep what. You are the reason we went to war.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I see, so what benefit does corporate taxation give to the people, if any at all ?
          If corporate taxation benefits people, then less taxation benefits people less.

          The pot of money the tax ought to be put into (but due to the tax break is now missing) is short by a certain amount. The pot of money is the public’s money and perhaps income tax may need to rise to make up the difference.

          I am the reason you went to war ?
          So, i’m still here…….

        • gator69 says:

          “If corporate taxation benefits people, then less taxation benefits people less.”

          I love when ‘intellectuals’ don’t get killing the golden goose! 😆

          It is not my money. It is not your money. It is not the government’s money.

          Your ideas on subsidy are wrong. You are wrong. Get over it and move on.

        • gator69 says:

          “I am the reason you went to war ? So, i’m still here…….

          No, you are over there, where we put you over two centuries ago. 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Where you put us ? lololol

          You left…..but, your constitution is typically British, based on the Magna Carta and the bill of rights, and even the American Bar Society paid for a monument to us at Runnymede http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/runnymede/

          Runnymede, that’s the place where the document which protects the subjects from the Royals was sealed. It has served to form the constitutional groundwork of most countries and is quoted across the world.

          If it is so bad, why take it with you when you ran ?

        • gator69 says:

          It appears that the intellectual has forgotten who lost the war. Credibility fail. 😆

          Our constitution was based upon 5000 years of governments. Maybe you should look beyond your own nose when fact checking. The Sun has set on the British empire.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Daavid, just for complete clarity before I stop giving you the benefit of the doubt, are you telling me that companies which generate green energy never pay anything into the tax system (or that there contribution is completely wiped out by the in kind contribution given to them by the government ?) That the users who buy the electricity don’t pay tax to the government for every single unit used too ?

          I mean, if that is so, then what a great business to get in to

        • Daavid A says:

          Chris you must use will power to not understand the difference between giving someone another persons money, (subsidy) and taking less money from someone (tax break)

          So once again, tell me how much of their own money from profits (tax) green energy pays, vs the same from oil companies. So not forget to include the tax per gallon paid in the US from the Feds, and the states.

          I anxiously await your informative Mensa quality answer.

        • Chris Barron says:

          When a company isn’t paying the tax which it ought to, yet benefits by charging prices which assume they will be paying a higher proportion of tax than they really are, it’s profit is subsidised.

          Or do you suggest that tax breaks given to one company automatically apply to all other companies without question.

          I know that if I was director of a company and my company got a tax break, i wouldn’t drop my prices…I would still tell people that the price is still the same because i also had taxes to pay…and most people do the same

  45. Daavid A says:

    …and Chris, I will be generous, you may include in the subsidy category, any tax break not given to other industries (hint do not include foreign tax breaks as they apply to all foreign operating national based corporations) but do include green energy tax breaks, that only apply to green energy.

  46. Daavid A says:

    …oh and Chris, also include the hidden cost of conventional power generators. You know, the guys that are required to lower there revenue for green energy when wind and solar power get first rights to sell the energy the managed to find (windy and sunny days) and so the conventional guys must stand by ready to boost power, (whenever the wind stops or the sun goes behind a cloud) while they sit there without revenue, which they would be selling if the wind guys were not the there.

  47. Daavid A says:

    … finally Chris, please subtract the subsidy from the tax revenue for one final NET paid figure.

    Good job Chris, but one more task to complete the picture you refuse to see. Draw two parallel heading for categories. Energy actually produced to the grid and NET money paid to the government. Shocking is it not Chris that conventional power and Big Oil pay trillions, while providing over 90 percent of the actual power generated; and Green energy pays ZERO, receives billions in net subsidies, pays nothing NET, and produces at most 10 percent of the power.

    Oh, and Chris do not forget to include as a subsidy the increased cost of power due to the Green movement.

  48. Chris Barron says:

    “So once again, tell me how much of their own money from profits (tax) green energy pays, vs the same from oil companies. ”

    And is this question posed because you merely wish to show that one industry is larger than another ? By logic, the smaller industry is almost certainly going to be paying less tax

    • Daavid A says:

      If you get the TRUE NET based on the true costs I outlined, then one industry pays zero tax, and is paid to be in business. (…and yes, the size of the industry relative to the size of the subsidy matters to anyone with commonsense, which apparently Mensa types apparently lack)

      So, using your Mensa brilliance, calculate the true net, and then the true percentage of energy supplied; the product.

      • Chris Barron says:

        17.9%

        • Daavid A says:

          Completee fail to answer the question, and hydro is conventional.

        • Chris Barron says:

          The question is irrelevant to the topic of green energy being unsustainable, as implied in the topic of this thread and got the time it deserved

        • Chris Barron says:

          Norway’s huge oil taxes benefits everybody (apart from the oil companies)
          https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/if-every-norwegians-a-millionaire-whys-alberta-in-hock

        • gator69 says:

          Norway is the world’s 7th biggest oil exporter, but 117th in population, and it supplies a 5th of the European Union’s gas. Their population is only 5 million, or over 3 million less than New York City alone, and 30 million less than Canada.

          “Norway’s energy boom is tailing off years ahead of expectations, exposing an economy unprepared for life after oil and threatening the long-term viability of the world’s most generous welfare model.”

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/08/us-norway-economy-insight-idUSBREA4703Z20140508

          Golden Goose, meet axe. 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          And i see you haven’t figured out how to respond to the correct posting.
          That’s not a political comment by the way.

          Norway taxes heavily the oil producers. The wealth of the country increases as a result.

          But then it would do, when you think about it ?

          It’s as if you’re saying that the oil industry does not produce problems which require sums of cash over and above what other industries demand.

          Naval escorts for oil tankers really ought to be free……and sending in ground troops should be tax deductable, no ? So it’s only fair that the oil industry should have to pay it’s fair share……but then it gets tax breaks on top of that too ! you couldn’t make it up…..but they did….

        • gator69 says:

          I can see that being a member of Mensa today does not require math skills. I knew about the economic illiteracy, but this is news.

        • Chris Barron says:

          The question implied that I should overlook the excessive cost of getting oil in terms of all the cleaning up….the cost of military protection, the long term diplomatic support, the bribes and everything else which goes hand in hand with oil exploration…..and conclude after that , those costs are all being paid for by the taxpayers, but the government should not tax those companies more than any company which might want to install a wind farm way out west…

          It wasn’t a serious question, was it ?

        • gator69 says:

          It wasn’t a question. Fail again.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Nobody wins a wisdom contest……but don’t let that stop you 😉

        • gator69 says:

          So you still have not figured out that a tiny nation with huge oil reserves (with which they gouge their neighbors) can afford what other nations cannot (for now).

          Mensa must be so proud! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          So the 80% tax is dumped in the sea ? Or maybe they burn the banknotes in big fires….boiling water, making power…..

        • gator69 says:

          Or maybe a tiny nation with enormous wealth can afford the 80% tax (for now).

          Odd you missed the obvious yet again! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          No the point you’re missing is that when I introduced this information you assumed I hadn’t already considered it….or why else would I exclude countries with high oil production taxes but low reserves ?

        • gator69 says:

          Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….

          The chattering of a child bores me.

  49. gator69 says:

    Chris Barron says:

    “I know that if I was director of a company and my company got a tax break, i wouldn’t drop my prices…I would still tell people that the price is still the same because i also had taxes to pay…and most people do the same”

    Genius, what do you think happens when taxes go up on companies? Who do you think actually pays the taxes? (Take your time, this is not going to be easy for you)

    • Chris Barron says:

      But by that time i am the director of a company, so i don’t mind making everyone else pay because I’m living the American dream at that point…..

      Or, realistically, if the tax burden imposed by government increases then the company makes decisions on how to fund it. Every company reacts differently but follow predictable choices uses….some staff get laid off, some bosses show sense and don’t take pay rises, the selling price might rise.

      So, contrary to that, when the tax burden on that company goes down….do they employ more staff to make everyone else’s life that much easier and reduce their selling price to please the customer ?

      • gator69 says:

        The successful companies reinvest, so yes.

        Now are you saying that we should now raise taxes on companies?

        • Chris Barron says:

          You finally came around to the idea Gator, successful companies reinvest…
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotricity

          I only mentioned the company for the first time days ago, and then again yesterday, and again today……

          He started with 1 unit, he reinvested from the profits of the first to buy more ….and slowly, very slowly, he has grown his business to be something which exceeds all expectations given the current climate….and yet some say he doesn’t pay tax, or his company doesn’t pay corporation tax……..if only it were true.

          Starbucks, however, they hadn’t been paying their taxes for years,

        • gator69 says:

          No, you finally came around. You now know that money people and businesses earn is not anyone else’s. You should also now know that subsidies and tax breaks are two very different things. Plus I educated you on a number of other items including who won the Revolutionary war, that Brits did not invent government, and that your membership to Mensa is a waste of paper.

          Go tax yourself! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          It’s a good job you live in your vivid imagination then !

        • gator69 says:

          Good one! Yeah, it does take an extraordinary amount of imagination to envision a programmed leftbot that it is capable of learning.

      • Daavid A says:

        Chris asks, “So, contrary to that, when the tax burden on that company goes down….do they employ more staff to make everyone else’s life that much easier and reduce their selling price to please the customer ?”

        Asked and answered, https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/green-energy-is-dead/#comment-478847 although your question is stupidly framed. First of all in my 35 years of full time work, I liked to be busy and work hard with an attitude of service, was well rewarded, and observed those who wanted the “burden” of their work reduced, to be unhappy complainers. (not talking about back breaking physical labor here, which by the way, has been greatly reduced due to fossil fuels, as energy is the life blood of any economy)

  50. Daavid A says:

    Chris says (after completely failing to answer the question)… “I know that if I was director of a company and my company got a tax break, i wouldn’t drop my prices…I would still tell people that the price is still the same because i also had taxes to pay…and most people do the same)

    Mensa? Really. Chris you have no clue. You may reinvest that income back into your business, you may lower your prices, because your competitor, already taking business from you, got the SAME tax break and in order to get even more of YOUR business, lowered his prices.

    Have you looked at the cost of oil lately?

    • Chris Barron says:

      And the cost of oil is the de facto most unmolested unmanipulated commodity price in the world is it not ? …..seriously ?

      It’s gone down through the floor…petrol pump prices are great here, better than any time in the past 5 years. It costs more to produce it now than it did 5 years ago……..hey wait a minute…..do you think that oil is giving something back just to keep customers ?……..where the heck else are they going to go for oil ?

      Using the drop in price of oil as evidence that reinvestment in their business allows oil companies to pass on the savings to customers is errant, considering the age of the industry and the very recent price change not being representative of any recent reinvestment.

  51. Daavid A says:

    “Using the drop in price of oil as evidence that reinvesedtment in their business allows oil companies to pass on the savings to customers is errant, considering the age of the industry and the very recent price change not being representative of any recent reinvestment”
    =======================================
    Strawman alert. never stated that, only showed that when supply increases prices drop.

    • Chris Barron says:

      You said “Have you looked at the cost of oil lately”

      Ask 100 people what the question means, how many will say that it means “It shows that when supply increases prices drop.

      A few ?

      None ?

      You asked if I had seen the price of oil, i gave the question an interpretation…..it wasn’t a strawman point at all….

      HOWEVER…… you have now implied that the oil production volume controls price.
      Do we dare to unfurl the historical data on that or will you stop now and realise yoiur mistake ?

      USEIA data suggests that we should have expereinced pretty much falling oil prices for decades
      http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=oil&graph=production

      You don’t suppose it ever crossed the minds of oil companies to charge more when sales volumes increased, do you ?

      • Daavid A says:

        Chris Brown says….said “Have you looked at the cost of oil lately”
        Ask 100 people what the question means, how many will say that it means “It shows that when supply increases prices drop.
        A few ?
        None ?
        ===================================================
        I do not care what they say, and I only care what clearly happened in this instance of dramatic price drop. Also, to anyone with an IQ above idiot, supply can increase or demand drop, both can lower prices, and if you do not think the price drop was driven by increased supply, and no increase in demand, then you simply are not paying attention.

        Also, this clearly was a straw man, as you stated “Using the drop in price of oil as evidence that reinvesedtment in their business allows oil companies to pass on the savings to customers is errant, considering the age of the industry and the very recent price change not being representative of any recent reinvestment” Thus Chris, you misrepresented why I brought up the drop in oil prices. It was due to your silly and very limited statement…
        Chris says (after completely failing to answer the question)… “I know that if I was director of a company and my company got a tax break, i wouldn’t drop my prices…I would still tell people that the price is still the same because i also had taxes to pay…and most people do the same.”

        Inane comment, completely devoid of understanding market forces and competition, lacking any nuance of many other possible reasons to lower price, and ignorant that lower prices happen many times in the markets. To ignore “supply and demand” in economics is to display astounding ignorance.

        I noticed your complete failure to add up the “net paid to government” after subtracting subsidies, as I defined them to be fairly applied to both wind and solar, verses conventional power production. I am not surprised you do all possible to avoid this, even making inane irrelevant comments that do distract from the real costs of wind and solar.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I’m not put off by your ridicule, because no matter what you say Daavid you’re implication that as supply rises prices always falls doesn’t hold true when you look at the historic supply volumes of oil.

          For decades the supply has been steadily rising…but so have the prices.

          Is profiteering not a word used in the US ?

        • Daavid A says:

          Chris engages in another strawman..”…you’re implication that as supply rises prices always falls”
          I never said “always” and only a simpleton would. There are many factors, the most fundamental being “supply and DEMAND”, You once again demonstrate your failure to even grasp the basics. No one here has denied the robber baron era, or many forms of profiteering, and have in fact pointed out the shale game of green energy to your willfully blind eyes. Chris, you make many willful comments, often arrogant as well. When your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance, it is a sad day.

        • Chris Barron says:

          You seem to be living a dream that if you like someone’s character they are more likely to be thinking like you……..

          Continue with your popularity contest…you’re not defending against my use of realtime data figures which show that wind is contributing a useful amount of energy and really, that’s all that really matters

          Wind is producing 1/7th of our electricity right now in the UK….I don’t think any other source could have got on line more quickly, with as little fuss, as wind has.

          For the record I have never pretended wind is cheaper than bonfires, enough people have tried to put words like that in my mouth,though which of course they are free to do to amuse me.

        • Daavid A says:

          Chris says, “For the record I have never pretended wind is cheaper than bonfires, enough people have tried to put words like that in my mouth,though which of course they are free to do to amuse me”

          Chris, are you a horse, as so much straw comes from your comments? I never stated you said wind was cheaper then bonfires. And I never related to your character comment.
          You stated …”…you’re not defending against my use of realtime data figures which show that wind is contributing a useful amount of energy and really, that’s all that really matters”
          ———————–
          I thought conservatives lacked nuance.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Like I’ve said before, i think CO2 does not cause global anything except plant growth, and enjoy the sense put out by this website.

          I guess where I differ with the majority of contributors is that I don’t group every topic which has something to do with global warming, such as ‘green energy’, under the same heading of ‘That’s bollocks’

          I don’t think that lacks any nuance either

  52. Daavid A says:

    Why do liberals fail to grasp fundamental economics?

  53. Chris Barron says:

    Whats it got to do with politics….volts don’t vote

    • gator69 says:

      But dolts like you do, and therein lies the problem.

    • Whats it got to do with politics …

      That’s a fascinating question.

      Most of the leftists of my acquaintance—a significant sample since I live in the vicinity of the People’s Republic—have been as of our last debates unconditional believers in the anthropogenic global warming theory and promoters of green energy. Scientific proof and cost analysis doesn’t matter. For scientific proof they make an appeal to authority. For costs analysis they fall back on scientific proof. Much of what they think they know is wrong and when challenged with facts, they quite predictably arrive at the argument of last resort: The Precautionary Principle.

      When told that besides the evaluation of probability and risk severity such a principle includes a cost-benefit analysis, they either give me a blank look or disagree passionately: “How can you put a price on human life or the planet? When told that they make such money-versus-life decisions in everyday life I get blank looks *). When told that even the most trivial decisions like when to change the tires involves balancing the risk of loss of life against the cost of the tire change, the debates quickly deteriorate into nonsense.

      Why is that? Why don’t they get basic economics when applied to governmental endeavors? What’s that got to do with their leftist ideology?

      What’s it got to do with politics?

      —–
      *) During sequels the “blank look” is usually replaced by a “knowing look” and “Not that conservative argument again!” or something of that kind. They learn.

      • gator69 says:

        “We conducted a validation test of the IPCC forecasts that were based on the assumption that there would be no regulations. The errors for the IPCC model long-term forecasts (for 91 to 100 years in the future) were 12.6 times larger than those from an evidence-based “no change” model.

        Based on our own analyses and the documented unscientific behavior of global warming alarmists, we concluded that the global warming alarm is the product of an anti-scientific political movement.

        Having come to this conclusion, we turned to the “structured analogies” method to forecast the likely outcomes of the warming alarmist movement. In our ongoing study we have, to date, identified 26 similar historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts behind the analogous alarms proved correct. Twenty-five alarms involved calls for government intervention and the government imposed regulations in 23. None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them.”

        Testimony to Committee on Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on “Climate Change: Examining the processes used to create science and policy” – March 31, 2011

        Professor J. Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania,

        with Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia,

        and Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

        It appears the true precaution is to do no harm.

      • Chris Barron says:

        Why am I starting to think that everyone believes that the government must control the energy business. Surely going for less profitable options means less interest by the powers that be and their fat cat buddies ?

        • Why am I starting to think that certain fascinating questions better remain unanswered?

        • Daavid A says:

          Chris Brown states, “Surely going for less profitable options means less interest by the powers that be and their fat cat buddies ?”
          ===================================================
          Wow, man you are just not paying attention. OPM always, without exception means the powers that be are irresistibly attracted to the game, and will perpetuate it with OPM as much as possible. Are you daft? Profit means nothing, when you are playing with OPM, and the graft that accompanies it. Everyone of those failed green energy companies paid into the fat cats promoting them, and much of that money they received from the people is not accounted for, and slowly being investigated, with the current department of justice obstructing as much as possible.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Like I said before though, that doesn’t prove a failure of concept of using wid to generate large amounts of energy….it just proves yet again that when yoiu let businessmen control the future they make money.

          A lot of people questioned how China could rise so quickly in the last 15 years, but didn’t realise that the top 9 people of the government, the polit bureau steering committee, consisted of 8 engineers and 1 world acclaimed scientist…not a career politician in sight.

          Jump on a plane and fly to London, or Washington, and yoiu find different creatures in charge, most of them with friends in big business. Has the UK minister for education ever taught ? nope…it’s the same stories everywhere.

          Put politicians in charge of something technical and you lose the ability to detect if the technical information is of good quality any more…….or at least we did until climategate

        • Daavid A says:

          Straw man, never sad that it proved wind was a failure. Many other facts prove that.

          Good for China engineers, but the success was mainly due to some common sense yes, but billions of folk willing to work for cheap labor, and the statist controls are now starting to manifest may problems. China is however still developing more nuclear and coal then their little wind games.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Now that is a straw man if ever there was one.
          China’s cheap labour is only cheap when the relative costs of everything else are the same as yours.
          Clearly, in China the wages paid were in keeping with the cost of living (and relatively high for the industry as a whole) , and which is rising steeply across the board

          Maybe that is at the bottom of your issues ? It is well known that the number one world economy is slipping back behind China

        • Daavid A says:

          So the fact that China made investment into cheap energy to industrialize their economy and used their billions of people as inexpensive labor relative to the major powers at the time, US, Japan, Europe, and so consequently had tremendous growth is a strawman how?

        • Chris Barron says:

          Do you have to hand the figure for Chinese installation engineer wages ?

          It is well above average.

          Have you seen their cost/MWh of wind ? It isn’t unusual compared to yours.

          What was your point ?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Daavid A says:

          ….. Are you daft? Profit means nothing, when you are playing with O[ther] P[eoples] M[oney], and the graft that accompanies it. Everyone of those failed green energy companies paid into the fat cats promoting them, and much of that money they received from the people is not accounted for, and slowly being investigated, with the current department of justice obstructing as much as possible….

          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          I was not aware of the investigations but you are correct. Our bought and paid for MSM brushes that under the rug since it reflects badly on The Obamessiah.

          ….The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.

          The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. ….
          SOURCE

          And that is with Eric Holder kicking and screaming and obstructing as much as possible.

  54. gator69 says:

    Chris Barron says:

    You’re just about to start paying for fracking now….

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/06/1355814/-97-of-fracking-now-operating-at-a-loss-at-current-oil-prices

    😆 Thanks for that! The Daily Kos! There’s integrity for you.

    Did it make sense to produce more oil, to lower the price to the point where it is no longer viable to produce it ?

    Yes, yes it did. Any more stupid questions? (Please God don’t take that literally)

    • Chris Barron says:

      lolol So when that number of producers say that is what happens….it’s true only if you hear it from a source you prefer ?

      Fracking losses are now an undeniable reality….

      …but feel free to deny it all the same 😉

      • gator69 says:

        Reading comprehension is another category those Mensa folks apparently dropped from their test lately. 😆

        I did not disagree, in fact, if you read my response and understood it, that would be clear.

        I just love that your go to source is about as far left as they come.

        Keep ’em comin’, you are making Mensa look like the short bus! 😆

  55. Chris Barron says:

    $1 trillion required, taxpayers get ready ….

    • gator69 says:

      Speaking of arrogance. Go ahead thief, take money that does not belong top you.

      • Chris Barron says:

        If you give them your permission don’t blame them if they go ahead and do it…… ?.

        I guess it’s allowed if it’s called a tax break ,huh ?

        • gator69 says:

          A tax break is stealing less of what is not yours, thief.

          So Mensa dropped logic too? 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          I’s almost funny to think that you’ve projected this all onto me.

          you don’t believe in god too, do you ?

        • gator69 says:

          This is what I believe…

          “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

          You, on the other hand, prefer blindfolded fear.

  56. Gail Combs says:

    An another myth bites the dust…

    This is a guest post by Kris de Decker. Kris is editor of Low Tech Magazine. Rembrandt and I saw a somewhat similar story in the Dutch version of Low Tech Magazine, and Kris was kind enough to put together this story in English for us….

    Two real-world tests performed in the Netherlands and in the UK confirm our earlier analysis that small wind turbines are a fundamentally flawed technology. Their financial payback time is much longer than their life expectancy, and in urban areas, some poorly placed wind turbines will not even deliver as much energy as needed to operate them (let alone energy needed to produce them). Given their long payback period relative to their life expectancy, most small wind turbines are net energy consumers rather than net energy producers.

    The machines face two fundamental problems: there is not enough wind at low altitudes in a built-up environment, and the energy production of a wind turbine declines more than proportionately to the rotor diameter…..

    The Dutch coastal province of Zeeland (a very windy place) placed twelve of these much hyped machines in a row on an open plain (picture above). Their energy yield was measured over a period of one year (April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2009). The average wind velocity during these 12 months was 3.8 metres per second (more on the wind speed later).

    Three wind turbines broke. Find the disappointing results of the others below. (Original test results here, pdf in Dutch.)

    – Energy Ball v100 (4,304 euro) : 73 kWh per year, corresponding to an average output of 8.3 watts
    – Ampair 600 (8,925 euro) : 245 kWh per year or an average output of 28 watts
    – Turby (21,350 euro) : 247 kWh per year or an average output of 28.1 watts
    – Airdolphin (17,548 euro) : 393 kWh per year or an average output of 44.8 watts
    – WRE 030 (29,512 euro) : 404 kWh per year or an average output of 46 watts
    – WRE 060 (37,187 euro) : 485 kWh per year or an average output of 55.4 watts
    – Passaat (9,239 euro) : 578 kWh per year or an average output of 66 watts
    – Skystream (10,742 euro) : 2,109 kWh per year or an average power output of 240.7 watts
    – Montana (18,508 euro) : 2,691 kWh per year or an average power output of 307 watts.

    Keep in mind that these wind turbines would perform considerably worse in a built-up area….

    The test results described above may give a too rosy picture of the performance of the machines….

    Jeroen Haringman determined that the measurements of other wind turbines in the same area over the same period was slightly higher than average. Jeroen van Agt reported that a weather station of the Dutch meteorological service, located 14 kilometres from the test site, measured a wind speed of 6 metres per second. Confronted with this information, the organizers of the test answered that the reported wind speed at the test site was “only indicative”. If the wind speed at the location was indeed higher than 3.7 metres per second, then the performance of the machines is seriously overstated……
    SOURCE

    • gator69 says:

      Some sleazeball contractor built a subdivision about 15 miles from me, and every house has the most hideous wind contraption on the roof. Since the day they were built, those turbines have failed to produce squat, and they are only 2 years old! Smarter homeowners (now) have already started removing the turbines, and repaired the roof damage. Eye sores with no purpose.

      • Chris Barron says:

        Horses for courses, it’s long shot to put a turbine on your roof and expect to make it pay unless you;re in the very best of locations.

        I would never say that wind can power the world. It has it’s place…..as does solar and marine (flow and tidal).

        It isn’t the fault of the concept of wind power that someone installed it in an inappropriate way, Subsidies designed to assist businesses to create reliable long lasting solutions have too often been misused by businesses being….well, typically businesslike !

        You have to laugh don’t you ? … (or you’re gonna cry 😉

      • gator69 says:

        Oh, I forgot, you leftists always believe it is the implementation and not the plan. 😆

        Yes, we should have bankrupted all local business in order to mount the right turbines.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Hopefully, for your sake, the bill will be less than $1trillion…..

        • gator69 says:

          There you go again, hoping when you should be doing your homework. Go spend your own money thief.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “You are an accomplice at the very least.”
          I’m a guy in Scotland who talks back…..is my action so very powerful ? Tempting indeed 😉

        • gator69 says:

          So sorry to hear my former countrymen have turned to beggars.

          Supporting the goals of a thief, no matter where you live, makes you an accomplice.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I don’t think I’m alone in thinking you’ve gone somewhat off the rails

        • gator69 says:

          So the guy who wants to steal other peoples money and tilt at windmills is right on track?

          Mensa called, they want their membership back. 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Absolutely could not care what you think…that’s no problem for you, nor should it be.

          What is it I have stolen exactly ? (just for the sake of it….)

        • gator69 says:

          You have at least the heart of a thief, and that is all I care to know. You care not for facts, only agenda, no matter the cost in money or lives.

        • Chris Barron says:

          And there was I talking about the military cost of oil, and the loss of lives…..
          Ya…..If I was ironic right now and said ‘you’re right I don’t care about people’ do you promise not to take it as fact ?

        • gator69 says:

          What military cost? We were attacked by terrorists, not oil wells! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          So how do i order one of those free naval escorts for my gulf oil tankers….or pay the widows of the free dead sailors and soldiers ?

          There’s still no such thing as a free lunch is there

        • gator69 says:

          Again, we went to war over an attack that killed 3000 Americans in one morning. Are you really that stupid? If you really want an escort, get off your ass and produce something worthy of it.

          Blood for oil is a childish meme.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Am i how stupid ?
          Prior to 9/11 there was no use of the military to protect oil supply ? Stop pulling our leg….

          The U.S. military has used force or the threat of force to protect its energy interests around the world, primarily in the Middle East, for more than five decades, safeguarding foreign oil sources and the sea lanes through which they pass.

          According to Roger Stern, an energy professor with the National Energy Policy Institute who also teaches about energy and national security at the University of Tulsa, the cost of keeping a U.S. military presence—particularly naval forces— in the Persian Gulf from 1976 to 2007 was $7.3 trillion. The policy was formulated during World War II when the U.S. battled with Japan over oil shipping choke points in the Pacific. The approach was adopted by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations when Soviet adventurism in Iran and pan-Arab unrest in the Middle East threatened the Persian Gulf oil deliveries.

          It was made explicit in 1980 by the Carter administration in response to the Soviet Union’s encroachment in the Persian Gulf. Oil is vital not only to American national security but also U.S. allies’ security because their economies are heavily dependent on petroleum imports. As a result, protection of the world’s oil facilities became part of U.S. national security strategy.

          > > >> > > > > > > >

          FREETOWN, Sierra Leone, Sept. 17 (UPI) — Potentially major oil strikes announced by an American-led consortium and a British company in West Africa have bolstered the region’s reputation as the world’s hottest energy zone. It has also become the focus of the U.S. military’s global mission to protect America’s energy supplies, a development that critics fear will trigger more trouble than it will prevent. The Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp. said Wednesday its deepwater Venus 1B well off the coast of Sierra Leone had hit paydirt and formed one of two “bookends” 700 miles apart across two prospective basins that extend into waters controlled by Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana. These could each contain 150 million to 1 billion barrels of oil, according to Anadarko’s CEO Al Walker. One of Anadarko’s consortium partners, Tullow Oil of Britain, which has a vast array of licenses in Africa, recently announced a new potentially important discovery in its Ngassa field in Uganda. By 2025, the United States is expected to be importing about one-fifth of its oil from West Africa. That makes the region strategically important to the United States. In the scramble for new oil reserves as the planet’s older fields become depleted, the U.S. military has become a predominant force in U.S.-African relations. Witness the 2008 inauguration of the U.S. military’s latest command, Africa Command, or Africom, launched a year earlier in February 2007 by the George W. Bush administration, for whom energy security was of paramount importance. The Bush team insisted that Africom was intended to promote a humanitarian agenda, strengthen democracy in a continent noted for its tyrants and dictators, and improve economic growth. President Barack Obama’s administration endorsed that. But many African see Africom’s mission in more menacing terms: ensuring that the United States gets most of Africa’s oil, not China or India, which need it to fuel their burgeoning economies. – See more at: http://platformlondon.org/2009/09/27/us-army-oil-protection-service-in-africa/#sthash.JzFoEfrD.dpuf

          > > > > > > > >

          You can argue with the exact figure in dollars and cents if you wish…but don’t try to posit the idea that it comes at no charge at all
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508001262

          > > > > > >

          You can pickapart the sources (the above are merely from the first page of hits on Google…the number of hits is huge)….or the politics…..or the roundabout costs associated with military protection….but you would be fooling yourself to think the military cost of protecting oil in the Gulf, or in Africa, or anywhere that major oil reserves have been discovered and the US are drilling it., AND where it is not in US boundaries…..is nil, and has been nil for 50 years.

          If you say it cost nothing I will know you’re making it up to fool yourself, because as everybody can see, it costs a packet, and the oil business doesn’t directly pay for it.

        • gator69 says:

          Just like a lefty to not know their history…

          “The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitan War or the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the Northwest African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the Ottoman provinces of Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis, which were enjoying a large autonomy, as well as the independent Sultanate of Morocco.[1] The war was fought because U.S. President Thomas Jefferson refused to pay the high tributes demanded by the Barbary states and because they were seizing American merchant ships and enslaving the crews for high ransoms. It was the first military conflict authorized by Congress that the United States fought on foreign land and seas.”

          The middle east has been a cesspool for over a thousand years now, regardless of why we are there, all we get from them is aggression. I know this will go right over your head, so just grab your rattle and chant ‘Bood for oil!’. 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Nothing to do with green energy there……

          Ya can’t think why the middle east is aggressive towards the west, who come in and try to make unfavourable deals ?

          Really ?

          What would you do if Germany set up a camp in Cape Cod to catch fish for export back to Germany ?….give them a beer ?

          Oooops, have I just asked you to give me a lecture ? Probably….but what it will have to do with wind energy is beyond me

        • gator69 says:

          I see I parted your hair! 😆

          “Nothing to do with green energy there……”

          Or oil genius! We could be eating tofu and use North American unicorn farts to power our “I Love Arabs” billboard, and they would still seek us out for attacks.

          You are a willful idiot.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Spoken like a true dinosaur….

          I’ve shown you the energy mix and you’re disputing it’s integrity using nothing more than ‘I refuse to believe it’

          Nothing willful about that at all then ?

        • gator69 says:

          I’m a dinosaur if they are great historians! 😆

          Why must you lefties always have to rewrite history and lie so much?

  57. Gail Combs says:

    And another myth bites the dust…

    Wind Turbine Fail, Service Life Is Just 50% Of That Quoted By The Wind Industry

    The study was carried out by Professor Gordon Hughes of the University of Edinburgh, one of Britain’s leading energy and environmental economists, using years of data from wind farms in both Britain and Denmark.

    The findings are yet another embarrassment for the whole Green renewable energy boondoggle and has serious financial implications for energy bill payers who are already propping up the renewables industry via the ever increasing Green subsidies on energy bills:

    The Renewable Energy Foundation [1] today published a new study, The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark,[2] showing that the economic life of onshore wind turbines is between 10 and 15 years, not the 20 to 25 years projected by the wind industry itself, and used for government projections.

    The work has been conducted by one of the UK’s leading energy & environmental economists, Professor Gordon Hughes of the University of Edinburgh[3], and has been anonymously peer-reviewed. This groundbreaking study applies rigorous statistical analysis to years of actual wind farm performance data from wind farms in both the UK and in Denmark.

    The results show that after allowing for variations in wind speed and site characteristics the average load factor of wind farms declines substantially as they get older, probably due to wear and tear. By 10 years of age the contribution of an average UK wind farm to meeting electricity demand has declined by a third.

    This far from funny, vainglorious politicians have bought into the Green myth of renewable energy and have planned for future energy security by including generation capacity from renewables in future energy planning.

    This decline in performance means that it is rarely economic to operate wind farms for more than 12 to 15 years. After this period they must be replaced with new machines, a finding that has profound consequences for investors and government alike

    Not to mention profound consequence for energy bill payers who will doubtless be forced to subsidise the replacement of bird choppers far earlier than expected.

    Policymakers expecting wind farms built before 2010 to be contributing towards CO2 targets in 2020 or later must allow for the likelihood that the total investment required to meet these targets will be much larger than previous forecasts have suggested. As a consequence, the lifetime cost per unit (MWh) of electricity generated by wind power will be considerably higher than official estimates.

    • Chris Barron says:

      Gail, I’ve known all along what the life of a turbine is. The replacement cost of the nacelle is far less than the original installation cost ….and if memory serves me correctly, you and I have had this discussion before.

      4 years have passed since 2010…..the newer wind farms are outwith the content of your quote….is your quote out of date or are newer wind farms more reliable ?

      • Gail Combs says:

        While Al Gore is hyping Green Energy to the rest of us,Gore’s company filed a quarterly report with the SEC that tells a different story about the 30 stocks in its portfolio. His company’s public investments in wind, solar, biomass and other alternative energy to combat climate change are practically non-existent.

        Now that really makes you want to trust in Green energy doesn’t it?

        However ‘Green Energy’ is not the first of Al Gore and his commie buddy Maurice Strong’s money making schemes. (PLEASE spare me the protesting that Strong isn’t a commie his cousin, Anna Louise Strong, was buried with the highest honors in China and when the UN FOOD for OIL scandal broke with Strong’s hand in the till, Strong hightailed it to a warm welcome in China to escape a possible jail sentence.)

        By now everyone knows about Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Obama’s “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange. But that scam was not the first by any means.

        Molten Metal Technology Inc. was an earlier scam that Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Peter Knight and other of Strong’s buddies pulled. They had a lab bench, untested by pilot plant, method for dealing with hazardous waste. They scammed the USA tax payer and DOD out of $33 million or more. Al Gore hyped it on the First Earth Day, investors bought at inflated price of $31/share. Strong and his buddies knew the ‘profit’ was from the DOD grants which was not going to be renewed and got out before the company bankrupted. The investors sued. There was a congressional investigation.
        ‘A member of Molten’s board, Strong sold some shares at around $31 apiece a month prior to the stock’s October 1996 collapse. Today the stock is at 13 cents a share and Strong is being sued by San Diego class-action shark Milberg Weiss.”

        Some of the story is HERE. (It was 20 years ago.)

        There were others such as this one:

        “In 1976 he ran Petro Canada, the national oil company. By 1981 he had moved on to Denver oil promoter AZL Resources, where, as chairman and the largest shareholder, he was sued for allegedly hyping the stock ahead of a merger that eventually failed. Strong says he settled for $4.2 million at the insistence of his insurance company. “
        (The link is no longer viable for the quotes. )
        Another source:
        SAVING THE PLANET WITH MAURICE STRONG by Dyan Machan, Forbes Magazine, January 12, 1998)
        www(DOT)forbes.com/forbes/1998/0112/6101046a.html

        …….

        Back to the Wind Turbine Scam.
        Saturday, March 16, 2013
        COMMENT:
        I hold patents in alternative energy, and alternative energy solutions as they are today simply does not pay. Return on investment ranges between 37-60 years, and the equipment has only a 25 year lifespan. Also, wind must be blowing at a constant 10 MPH before you get the first watt out of a wind turbine. The technology really has not matured since its inception in the 80’s unfortunately. The technology is simply not there. Its a shame, but a fact. Also, the footprint to generate the same wattage that a commercial gas, coal or oil generating station produces is many time (in the hundred times) larger for alternative energy. Its costs, its ROI and the resource availability simply are not there yet. Perhaps in the future, and development should continue, but its not there now. Sorry folks, its the facts. ~ Dr. Tom D

        COMMENT by same Dr Tom D
        Solar companies are not falling upon hard times because of loans and international competition. Solar companies are falling upon hard times because it costs between $1.50 and $3.00 a kilowatt where the power company charges $0.16 a kilowatt. Average ROI is between 35 and 50 years, with the cells only having a life of 15-25 years. People got fascinated with the hype and not the money. When they went to purchase, and found out the cost, reality set in. That is why they are having a hard time.
        ARTICLE

        ….the University of Edinburgh found “for onshore wind, the monthly ‘load factor’ of turbines – a measure of how much electricity they generate as a percentage of how much they could produce if on at full power all the time – dropped from a high of 24 per cent in the first year after construction, to just 11 per cent after 15 years.”

        That’s a 55 percent drop, for you dinosaurs who still think that is important — and that is just for turbines still working….

        In America, these numbers are harder to come by — another red flag for investors — but as many as 1 in 4 wind turbines just does not work. Some do not even spin. Others spin, but do not generate electricity, so it is hard to tell by looking at them.

        Hawaii provides the favorite example: The 37 turbines at the Kamaoa Wind Farm stood derelict for more than six years after it was discovered that repairs were more expensive than replacements. This is just one of six abandoned wind farms in one of the most wind-ideal places on the planet. [Now what were you saying about REPLACEMENT PARTS??? – Perhaps you should immediately fly to Hawaii and give them your words of wisdom. -gc]

        The Altamont Pass Wind Farm in Northern California used to be the largest wind farm on Earth. Now it is best known as the largest killer of eagles and other raptors. The turbines are shut down for four months a year to protect the birds during their migration. So much for that pro-forma.

        As many as 4,500 wind turbines have been built — and abandoned — in California alone. ….

      • Daavid A says:

        Chris Brown misses the message completely. It does not matter what HE thinks the replacement costs are. What matters is that the costs quoted by the green lobbyists, used to get the stolen money from the people in the first place, was wrong and the failed wind problem is worse then we thought.

        • Daavid A says:

          Oh, and Chris uses the wrong costs in his claims of profitability of wind, despite knowing they are wrong, just as most wind supporters use name plate capacity, instead of actual production, and they like to include hydro in their camp, when in fact hydro is conventional, and the use of it helps hide the cost of wind and solar.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I didn’t know that you didn’t know that you didn’t know that before…..

          The figures I used are from live data, from the grid owners themselves (don’t misread that as wind power producers, I mean the grid operators), showing the true energy mix….because I know the periodic nature of wind can be misleading, and am surprised that you have only just understood this point too

          Realtime data – wind providing 1/7th of all UK demand this second http://www.ukenergywatch.org/Electricity/Realtimedro,

          Hydro, unlike the fib Daavid tells, has it’s own column in the data, and is producing about 1/5th of the amount of power which wind is producing.

          And for clarity, pumped hydro is used as both a balancing and storing mechanism. Conventional hydro is what you get at Niagara Falls, where a continuous non returning flow is diverted to turn turbines

        • Gail Combs says:

          Daavid A says: ” Chris Brown misses the message completely….”

          Chris Brown doesn’t miss the message, he is trying to bury it. His objective is not to discuss the truth but to convince the sleeping Sheeple to go back to sleep, the wolves aren’t discussing how to slice you up for dinner.

          Gator says he is a thief. I would go farther. He is in the UK promoting Wind Power and Green Energy so that makes him an accomplice to man slaughter. The fact he CONTINUES to push this crap makes him an accomplice before the fact and if there was Rule of Law he would be in the Docket with all the rest of his lying thieving murderous buddies.

          People like Chris Brown and Phil Jones are well aware that they could end up in jail or worse and that is why when the Climategate e-mails surfaced Phil Jones was shaking in his boots and contemplating suicide. It is why Warmists threaten to toss ‘Climate Deniers’ in Jail or kill them, if we won’t Shut the Hell Up! It is why Loony Lewandowsky & co are trying to paint ‘Climate Deniers’ as nutso using a couple of ‘papers’ based on faked data, one of which got retracted immediately.

          Of course it is the Warmists who are a wee bit wacko.

          A photo of Loony Lewandowsky’s buddy John Cook

          And a self photo of their ignorant brain-dead followers

        • Chris Barron says:

          Eeeee.
          It makes my heart warm at it’s edges

          I’m not promoting wind anywhere…I’m just saying that it seems to work pretty well when it works,

        • Chris Barron says:

          The figures were public knowledge before believed the hype.

    • Chris Barron says:

      Gail, professor Gordon Hughes (whom you quote) believes without doubt, that manmade CO2 causes global warming, and has worked as a senior advisor to the World Bank.
      No biggie, but you’ll believe alarmists and use their arguments when it suits your cause.

      • gator69 says:

        Gordon Hughes who said the IPCC is political and accused them of interfering with science, and issued this report…

        •Meeting the UK Government’s target for renewable generation in 2020 will require total wind capacity of 36 GW backed up by 13 GW of open cycle gas plants plus large complementary investments in transmission capacity at a cost of about £120 billion.

        •The same electricity demand could be met from 21.5 GW of combined cycle gas plants with a cost of £13 billion, i.e. an order of magnitude cheaper than the wind scenario.

        •Under the most favourable assumptions for wind power, the Government’s wind policy will reduce emissions of CO2 at an average cost of £270 per metric ton (at 2009 prices) which means that meeting the UK’s renewable energy target would cost a staggering £78 billion per year in 2020.

        “The key problems with current policies for wind power are simple. They require a huge commitment of investment resources to a technology that is not very green, in the sense of saving a lot of CO2, but which is certainly very expensive and inflexible. Unless the current Government scales back its commitment to wind power very substantially, its policy will be worse than a mistake, it will be a blunder,” Professor Hughes said.

        But of course, you know better.

        • Chris Barron says:

          No, but my political compass cares so little that I don’t know a leftist source from a rightest source or from a liberal one.
          But if I use the ‘wrong ‘ source then I’m told everything I infer is incorrect !

          I don’t mind a double standard, if nobody else does. I’m not one to whinge

          If we can slam people who believe in AGW and who support humiliation attempts of people who ‘deny’ it….and yet use their data and hold it up as exemplary…then it’s a free house right ?

          Again, i don’t mind living without rules and social protocols if you don’t, I’m pretty tolerant

        • gator69 says:

          “…my political compass cares so little that I don’t know a leftist source from a rightest source or from a liberal one.

          I have never met anyone as politically, economically and scientifically challenged as you. Although it is not entirely your fault, your education system obviously failed you. Really, you can’t tell communism from liberty? Wow.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I can tell the difference, but I wasn’t brought up with such a strong sense of bias. Having lived and worked in many countries I’ve just come to the conclusion that all people can be happy in most of the popular governmental memes….in some they will have more money than others…in others they will have better neighbours…horses for courses again.

          Damn commies ? so what. I survive
          Libertarians ? Okay, as long as they shut up and stop telling me I owe them something…..

          My grandmother was a liberal politician
          As my grandfather warned me and as it became obviously true “they all piss in the same pot”

        • gator69 says:

          Chris, I lived in Europe twice, and all over this country. On the old plantations down south, many slaves were quite content with their situation, and today their are many people living on government cheese, and they think that is great.

          If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you follow? Probably.

        • gator69 says:

          “My grandmother was a liberal politician
          As my grandfather warned me and as it became obviously true “they all piss in the same pot”

          In Europe the right and left are very similar, they both believe in bigger and bigger government. Here in the states, only the left wants 1984, the right is trying to reduce the size and scope of government. Hope that helps you.

  58. Chris Barron says:

    Am i not the one questioning the existence of god ? I think you’ll find that I am…

    Continue with you’re ‘I am right anyway’ approach………….call it courage if you like too…..but calling people who have nothing to do with your business thieves never will pay the bill either way

    • gator69 says:

      Questioning only your favorite targets is not intellectually honest, and neither are you.

      You are an accomplice at the very least. Mind your own damn business and go tax yourself.

      • Chris Barron says:

        A wish and a prayer will get you there…..
        Playing the victim card is pathetic when we’re merely talking about electricity and money….

        The customer wants the cheapest price forever……but forget that good things don’t last forever

        • gator69 says:

          No need for wishes or prayers. Science and technology has always come through and met our growing needs, something you doomers just don’t get even when it is abundantly evident in our history time and again.

          Who was it that campaigned on ‘hope’. 😆

        • Daavid A says:

          Chris your disparaging of Gail’s use of factual comments by a believer in CAGW was a clear illustration of why you cannot come to rational conclusions. In ANY discussion the source is less important then the factual truth of their assertion. Your willful adherence to the idea that one can never consider anything of what someone you disagree with says, is YOUR problem.

          The likely truth is that the man Gail quoted is a true believer in CAGW. So what? It makes perfect since if he is a true believer, as then he would want true economic solutions, not the thieving scam of wind power. The very fact that you fail to see this logic indicates you likely have financial skin in the scam.

        • Chris Barron says:

          The factual truth, Daavid, is that you are trying to win a discussion…..

        • Daavid A says:

          To quote Gary Cooper, “It wernt much”

  59. Gail Combs says:

    Daavid A says: “…..Chris, are you a horse, as so much straw comes from your comments? I never stated you said wind was cheaper then bonfires. And I never related to your character comment.
    You stated …”…you’re not defending against my use of realtime data figures which show that wind is contributing a useful amount of energy and really, that’s all that really matters” ..”

    The trolls never ever mention the back-up power needed for when the wind DOESN’T contribute ‘a useful amount of energy’ or that the wind blows at the wrong time to offset peak power usage and destabilizes the grid.

    As one power systems engineer said.
    “Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”

    Poland and the Czech Republic found that out the hard way when, to stabilize their own grid, Germany shunted the excess wind power over to their grids.

    “Germany’s ‘eco-miracle’ simply used the power grids of neighboring countries not only without asking for permission but also without paying for it. Poland and the Czech Republic have pulled the plug and are building a huge switch-off at their borders to block the uninvited import of green energy from Germany which is destabilizing their grids and is thus risking blackouts.”

    (Nothing like ‘unclean/stable power’ to shorten the life or even destroy equipment. A major problem when using home generators or generators on construction jobs.)

    Followed by:

    “In a stunning admission by Germany’s Economics Minister and Vice Chancellor to Angela Merkel, Sigmar Gabriel announced in a recent speech that the country’s once highly ballyhooed transformation to renewable energy, the so called Energiewende, a model that has been adopted by a number of countries worldwide, is “on the verge of failure“.
    Speaking at an event at SMA Solar, Germany’s leading manufacturer of solar technology, Gabriel even dropped yet another admission bomb:

    “The truth is that in all fields we under-estimated the complexity of the Energiewende.”

    Gabriel is not only the national economics minister and vice chancellor to Angela Merkel, he is also head of Germany’s socialist SPD party,”

    translations by By P Gosselin

    • Chris Barron says:

      I’ve already addressed the issue of grid storage in previous messages on this thread.

      Saying that I haven’t considered intermittent supply issues is just representative of either the inability to read or the dishonesty of your intent.

    • gator69 says:

      Gail, his ‘realtime’ figures are actually offers to buy and sell, not real generation.

      • Chris Barron says:

        Are you inattentive or blinkered, or both ?

        These are the actual units of electricity generated from each respective source. These are audited units of electricity… http://www.ukenergywatch.org/Electricity/Realtime

        The offers to buy and sell were your misinterpretation of UK balancing mechanism figures…. figures which you haven’t disproved as being anything other than small scale fast startup generators., fueled by gas, and diesel in most cases, and as described in the balancing mechanism documentation already provided

        • gator69 says:

          Wrong again genius. The figures are based upon a ‘Balancing Mechanism’, and I showed you this earlier, guess once again you failed to comprehend.

          You are a willful idiot.

        • Chris Barron says:

          How then, super genius, is it that the balance of energy requirement can be met so quickly if it is not for the real diesel and gas generators kept idling waiting for a balancing demand signal to start them up to , literally , balance supply with demand ?

          You clearly don’t know that in many cases you cannot simply increase the output of an online generator to meet minute by minute fluctuations in demand…..some stations take over 18 hours to reach complete output….in the meantime you need to fall back on something else to balance demand with supply, you need fast startup, low output devices.

          You are reading the reports as if it is all about just bids …….perhaps you don’t know that since deregulation of the UK energy market any individual can call themselves a balancing mechanism supplier, if they can provide power to the grid in a manner which is acceptable (IE will not overload local distribution limitations)

          A single man with a diesel generator can call themselves a balancing mechanism supplier…..as long as he can meet the operational requirements in term of steady voltage and AC frequency. Somebody doing that can wait for the price to rise in times of high demand and they will see that the live balancing mechanism price will be high, so they offer to sell ‘x’ MW at the current price and if the bid is accepted they fire up the generator and get that price for every MW within the agreed amount

          but this is all in the documentation on the National Grid website. I don’t know why you think it is merely a paper shuffling exercise….there are small private companies running small power stations doing this every single day

        • gator69 says:

          So I was right and you were wrong, thanks for clearing that up genius.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I get that you’re just joking now….

          Here’s the metering requirements for anyone wishing to provide reactive electricity to support the balancing mechanism http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6328

          A list of reactive suppliers can be found at the National Grid website, with their addresses, and you can actually go and touch the fast startup reactive generators to ensure they’re extant and that nobody trying to lie.

          The energy market in the US isn’t open and deregulated the the extent we enjoy, so I can put your assumption that we have the same limits as you into perspective

        • gator69 says:

          Changing sources does not erase the fact that you did not know what you were talking about. And appears you missed this from your link…

          …designed to simulate,”

          Quit while you are not as far behind as you will be.

        • Chris Barron says:

          If you’re not a nitpicking straw clutcher you had better show that the data is not representative of reality, because the source of the data is National Grid, which is duty bound to present acurate data….not simulation…not estimated….real time.

          Or let me put it another way, in order to prove that the figures I linked to are incorrect you must have compared them to the true figures (as you might call them)….so which figures are you using to compare that real time data to ? Is there another National Grid which i am not aware of ?

        • Chris Barron says:

          The sources are all the same, they web widgets are created by various developers, pretty normal and nothing sinister

          The raw data from National Grid is available directly from their soap server, here
          http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/additional/soapserver.php

          If you can program yiu can now make a web widget…..

          I suspect it will be significantly more difficult to find similarly accurate equivalent data for the US, which is why there is so much mythmaking about energy in the US I suspect.

          Why not pressure the energy companies to cough up the real time data and then you can make some real time observations instead of having to run the risks associated with speculation ?

        • gator69 says:

          😆

          Except in your case it would be a red herring.

          Genius, I looked into constructing a commercial wind turbine on the back of my property. I had been convinced by the sellers of wind that I could at least break even by selling power to neighbors. Then I did my research and discovered the difference between advocacy and reality.

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market., they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Once again, by not presenting comparative data, your point has mooted itself.

          The live data of wind generation comes from data collected at the output meters.

          Oh wait you do have meters over there don’t you ? Maybe you don’t have distributed metering like us ? You see, by law, every energy provider which puts electricity on the grid MUST meter ever kWh, because it is metering information which controls payment. Perhaps if the US grid is a closed market,unlike our completely open one, there is little need to meter it….you’re probably just monitor frequency and as frequency drops you increase supply..(traditionally a very reliable method of balancing supply-load) .as frequency goes over the target 60Hz you throttle back the supply.

          National Grid operates in a few US states too, so i suspect you will have better data in due course

        • gator69 says:

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market., they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Your thesis is that the generator output meter information is incorrect, just because yoiu say so.

          I can’t disprove that you believe you are correct.

          I continue to note your lack of comparative data to support your thesis, but we’ll just better forget about that or you’ll get more upset

        • gator69 says:

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market., they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

          Quit whining.

        • Chris Barron says:

          lol.
          Try as you might the data from generator output meters, transmitted in real time via radio and telephone to National Grid HQ, who puts the data on the web for download, continues to flow.

          Do you sometimes feel like King Canute ? 😉

          Let me put it another way…the data says that coal is currently providing 34% of electricity, and nuclear 18.7%….you think that’s true or false ?

          If you disagree (that would be a blinder)…. then we can tot up the totals for conventional sources and see if there is a deficit, and talk about where that missing energy is coming from ?

          Or to give you 2 chances….why not tell me what the energy mix in the UK is ?

        • gator69 says:

          From your links…

          “designed to simulate,”

          “offers to buy and sell”

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market., they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I see letters, but no numbers…keep on running and backtracking in an attempt to suggest there is some sort of obfuscation

          From the government report for 2014. ACTUAL hard generated units of electricity

          4. UK fuel mix (for comparison)
          Energy Source %
          Coal 34.0
          Natural Gas 25.6
          Nuclear 21.6
          Renewables 16.7
          Other 2.1

          With that in mind, are you saying that coal is NOT 34%, gas is NOT 25.6% and nuclear is NOT 21.6% ?

          Add those figures up and we are left with a deficit of …

          100 – 34 – 25.6 – 21.6 = 18.8%

          So where is that 18.8% of electricity coming from ? Would you like to attribute it to coal, or gas or nuclear…or shall we stick with the facts ?

        • gator69 says:

          Enough strawmen.

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market., they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Okay.

          Does the UK get 34% of it’s electricity (on average) from burning coal. ?

        • gator69 says:

          What did I say about strawmen?

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market., they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

        • Chris Barron says:

          So you are saying that the UK DOES NOT generate 34% of it’s electricty by burning coal ?

        • gator69 says:

          No. I said no more strawmen. Did you hit your head again?

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market., they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

        • Chris Barron says:

          So if we don’t get 34% from coal, how much do we get from coal, and all the other sources….and which figures did you use to establish there was an error in officially reported figures ?
          What is the size of the error ?

        • gator69 says:

          What part of…

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market., they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

          … do you not get?

        • Chris Barron says:

          You have implied I am a liar, or at least accused me of spreading disinformation

          I am being as open and honest as can be by asking for correct information (that which you consider to be correct)

          Is there something offensive about my question ?

          I will happily reconsider my position based on an alternative set of figures representative of the true energy mix.

        • gator69 says:

          Actually I said you were at the very least an accomplice to theft, Gail accused you of being an accessory to murder.

          We are not interested in examining failures, or supporting them.

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market, they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

        • Chris Barron says:

          You’re still not able to prove the figures are incorrect though…..

          I must try your realworl/imagination interface technique with my bank

          “Hey, change my bank balanace to read £8million, because your balance is wrong” !

        • gator69 says:

          If your bank calculates your balance based upon offers to deposit and withdraw, then I would support your efforts.

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market, they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

          Moron alert! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Did you just say that 34% of energy production bids were made by the coal industry… ?
          If so, what percentage of the bids were met with supply ?
          Where do you get those figures from ?

        • gator69 says:

          No. I said, “Moron alert!”, after you said something really, really stupid. In fact let’s revisit!

          Mensa Moron says:

          I must try your realworl/imagination interface technique with my bank

          “Hey, change my bank balanace to read £8million, because your balance is wrong” !

          gator69 says:

          If your bank calculates your balance based upon offers to deposit and withdraw, then I would support your efforts.

          Gosh that’s fun!

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market, they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

        • Chris Barron says:

          So……
          The government published that 34% of our energy mix is fulfilled by coal power

          You don’t think that represents 34% of respective generation in real kWh
          You don’t think that it represents 34% of bids (regardless of how much was supplied)

          Do you think that any electricity demand in the UK is generated from coal ? If so, how much ?

        • gator69 says:

          Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are?

          Mensa Moron says:

          I must try your realworl/imagination interface technique with my bank

          “Hey, change my bank balanace to read £8million, because your balance is wrong” !

          gator69 says:

          If your bank calculates your balance based upon offers to deposit and withdraw, then I would support your efforts.

          Gosh that’s fun!

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market, they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

        • Chris Barron says:

          The amount of ridicule which someone dishes out is not a measure of how right they are…..it’s not having an effect, get it all out of your system and then we can get back to that crazy little thing called proof, which you don’t have yet

          The live production data, which you have repeatedly misconstrued using a misunderstood sentence in an explanation of what the supply-demand balancing mechanism is for, still represents live production data.

        • gator69 says:

          So you admit your hypothetical fell flat, and that offers to do are not the same as doing.

          OK, one more time to be sure it sinks in…

          Mensa Moron says:

          I must try your realworl/imagination interface technique with my bank

          “Hey, change my bank balanace to read £8million, because your balance is wrong” !

          gator69 says:

          If your bank calculates your balance based upon offers to deposit and withdraw, then I would support your efforts.

          Gosh that never stops being fun!

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market, they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Prior to that you said the real production data are wrong, do you still say they are wrong because you say they are wrong, or do you have a better reason to doubt them ?

          They look quite reasonable to me, i followed the decline of the coal industry in the UK as a resident, and 34% of coal contributions to the energy mix are not controversial..

        • gator69 says:

          How’s it coming with your bank? 😆

          OK class, one more time…

          Mensa Moron says:

          I must try your realworl/imagination interface technique with my bank

          “Hey, change my bank balanace to read £8million, because your balance is wrong” !

          gator69 says:

          If your bank calculates your balance based upon offers to deposit and withdraw, then I would support your efforts.

          Gosh that will always be fun!

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market, they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Keep on clinging on to that thing…… Maybe when the tide goes out and your head gets above the waterline you will be able to talk about facts and figures

          34% of the UK electricity production is generated by coal fired stations….there is nothing controversial in that statement, but Gator knows more than everyone else and says it is wrong !

          Perhaps he says it is wrong because if he says it is right then the 17.8% figure for renewables would also have to be right, and that thought just upsets him .

        • gator69 says:

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market, they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

          The End.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Bye bye Gator.

          When you do eventually find something resembling an attempt at disproving the government produced annual data or the real time production data I will be here to discuss it, and accept it if we establish it’s authenticity

        • gator69 says:

          Bye MM! Good luck with your bank! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Bye, from the land which doesn’t burn coal 😉

        • gator69 says:

          “Bye, from the land which doesn’t burn coal.”

        • Chris Barron says:

          Chicken

        • gator69 says:

          Fool. Accessory to murder and theft.

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market., they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Gator states “Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market., they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.”

          in order to support that statement there is clearly an implicit requirement to know how much electricity is generated from wind.

          In order to make that statement and for it to be true there is clearly an implied knowledge of the amount of electricity which is generated by wind. But that is different to saying that the person making the statement is the one with the knowledge

          Gator has knowledge, or Gator has merely statements ?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator,

          Since those pushing Green Energy now know it is killing thousands in the UK does that jack the charge up from accessory to man slaughter to accessory to murder II or accessory to murder I?

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, because energy poverty is a universally recognized problem, maybe it is time we start holding some to account.

          Excess winter deaths are defined by the Office for National Statistics as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).

          Although the phenomenon of excess winter deaths is not unique to the United Kingdom, the incidence is markedly higher than for countries with similar climates and living standards. England has an 18% rise in deaths during the winter, on average, whereas Finland has a 10% increase, Germany and the Netherlands have 11%.[5]

          Since 2000, excess winter deaths in England and Wales remained generally at around 25,000. For the period of 2007-2008 the number of excess winter deaths was 27,480 of which the Hill reporte estimated that around 10% were caused directly by fuel poverty.[6] The winter of 2008-2009 the coldest in 10 years, and the Office for National Statistics estimated there were a total of 36,700, an increase of 49% over the previous year, which represents a 23.8% rise in deaths during the winter.”

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

          So what to charge? Murder 1 is premeditated, or results even accidentally from the commission of other certain felonies. Murder 2 is killing in the ‘heat of passion’. Manslaughter/Murder in the 3rd, is when you didn’t mean it but you killed someone.

          Question is, does he mean for people to die for ‘the cause’?

        • Chris Barron says:

          Ah, the old ‘mention some dead people and blame it on someone you don’t like’ routine, to divert attention

          I guess you are saying that without wind power old people wouldn’t die of cold….And what is obviously implied in that statement is that they would not have to pay for their electricity….because they usually die of cold because they cannot afford to pay for it.

          You’re about to dive in and say “Yeah so we should use the cheapest source to generate electricity”….To which I say that is just one solution….why not give them free electricity ? Old age pensioners already receive an annual payment called the winter fuel allowance, it could easily be increased.

          Nevertheless, it would be naive and shortsighted to say that if we get rid of wind power we would prevent the hypothermia related deaths of all old people, because you assume they will still be able to afford to buy heating. In itself, that argument is not helpful to them….no matter how well meaning it is, because there will be some who cannot even afford the cheapest electricity and so they would die anyway….but that is what we’re trying to avoid, isn’t it ?

        • gator69 says:

          Sleep off the drunk? Or did you just extend it? 😆

          <i."Gator has knowledge, or Gator has merely statements ?"

          Wrong again MM, Gator quoted a warmist who is an expert on wind turbines, who said they bare a waste of space.

          Before you type something as stupid as this again…

          Mensa Moron says:

          I must try your realworl/imagination interface technique with my bank

          “Hey, change my bank balanace to read £8million, because your balance is wrong” !

          gator69 says:

          If your bank calculates your balance based upon offers to deposit and withdraw, then I would support your efforts.

          … go back and actually read this thread asshole.

        • Chris Barron says:

          You’ve fooled yourself on more than this occasion….

        • Chris Barron says:

          > > >

          Not being a warmist I would treat their figures with scepticism across the board. Or at least I would look to see what the figures were for myself, who wouldn’t ?

        • gator69 says:

          Mensa Moron says:

          I must try your realworl/imagination interface technique with my bank

          “Hey, change my bank balanace to read £8million, because your balance is wrong” !

          gator69 says:

          If your bank calculates your balance based upon offers to deposit and withdraw, then I would support your efforts.

          Gosh that’s still lot’s of fun!

          Your figures are not real production data. Period.

          Wind turbines are a loser in the energy market, they would not exist without enormous government support. Period.

          Your silly little temper tantrum is not impressing anyone MM.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I guess we’ll never have anything like real world figures from you ever then…pity

          As an anti warmist I’m doubtful of any figures produced by well motivated warmist scientists. Quoting them to me doesn’t change my mind.

          Wind has been successfully used for thousands of years, for pumping water, for milling grains, and latterly for pumping oil from the ground. For over 100 years wind sourced electricity has been a non controversial concept.

          Suddenly, wind has been called a warmist idea.

          Thousands of years ago it wasn’t warmist, hundreds of years ago it wasn’t a warmist idea, decades ago it wasn’t a warmist idea….. Today it is a warmist idea – what changed ?

          What changed is that warmists came along, thats all that changed.

  60. Gail Combs says:

    Chris Barron says: “….David, are you including Enron in your calculations ? The third largest US bankruptcy since 1980….” ROTFLMAO!

    Seems Chris is not aware that Enron was behind the Green Energy Scam to begin with.

    Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room. This was during my storied three-week or so stint as Director of Federal Government Relations for Enron in the spring of 1997, back when Enron was everyone’s darling in Washington. It proved to be an eye-opening experience that didn’t last much beyond my expressing concern about this agenda of using the state to rob Peter, paying Paul, drawing Paul’s enthusiastic support.

    In fact, this case was not entirely uncommon in that the entire enterprise was Paul’s idea to begin with. Which left me as the guy on the street corner muttering about this evil company cooking up money-making charades, to nothing but rolled eyes until the, ah, unpleasantness….

    The basic truth is that Enron, joined by other “rent-seeking” industries — making one’s fortune from policy favors from buddies in government, the cultivation of whom was a key business strategy — cobbled their business plan around “global warming.” Enron bought, on the cheap of course, the world’s largest windmill company (now GE Wind) and the world’s second-largest solar panel interest (now BP) to join Enron’s natural gas pipeline network, which was the second largest in the world. The former two can only make money under a system of massive mandates and subsidies (and taxes to pay for them); the latter would prosper spectacularly if the war on coal succeeded.

    Enron then engaged green groups to scare people toward accepting those policies. That is what is known as a Baptist and bootlegger coalition. I sat in on such meetings. Disgraceful….

    Chris Horner

    So we can count Enron’s bankruptcy as another Wind and Solar bankruptcy.

    • Chris Barron says:

      …because it had nothing to do with trying to control the price of the market before they engaged in wind market manipulation…..probably….

      The execs at Enron drive Fords…better blame it on that too…..they ate pizza……

      Corellation and causation ? Only as and when YOU want to consider it

      • The execs at Enron drive Fords…better blame it on that too…..they ate pizza……

        Hey, Hitler made lots of false equivalences too!

        You really are a sad case. I hope you make a friend some day.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Enron, as is well known, was full of corruption and poor quality dealings a long time before the got into wind….but….I guess you won’t want to remember it that way

        • Daavid A says:

          Chris the wrong numbers you quoted regarding the cost of wind ignored Gail’s quoted costs due to the life span of wind turbines, Instead you used the wind industry numbers. But your deception continued, because you did not count the cost of back up, which is very large, as wind must have 100 percent back up of their name plate capacity.

          You also failed utterly to compute a NET TAX PAID into the system after all subsides, such as the cost of back up, the increase cost of electricity due to increase in the average customers bill, due to solar and electricity, the direct government money and loans, and loan back ups, and the tax deductions which apply ONLY to wind and solar.

          After doing the above, only then will you be able to compute a TRUE NET T.AX PAID.

          Then, for conventional, you will have to add in, not only the profit tax paid by conventional producers, including the oil companies, but add in the Federal and State taxes paid by consumers at the pump. That would be acceptable then to compare. Until you do the above you have NO NET numbers with which to subtract the subsides verses the amount paid into taxes.
          Wind and solar pay into the system NET zero, and TAKE billions, Conventional power produces pay into the system billions, while producing far less expensive electricity, while saving billions of acre feet of water world wide each year, causing every crop on the planet to grow about 15% more food, proved by hundreds of peer reviewed real world studies in thousands of real world experiments.

          Still waiting for your NET TAX PAID figures for wind and solar verses conventional.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Chris the wrong numbers you quoted regarding the cost of wind ignored Gail’s quoted costs ”

          As I haven’t quoted any figures for the cost of wind (you don’t remember ?) in what way were the non existent numbers incorrect ?

        • Daavid A says:

          Chris misses that much of Enron corruption was based on collusion with the government.

          “The basic truth is that Enron, joined by other “rent-seeking” industries — making one’s fortune from policy favors from buddies in government, the cultivation of whom was a key business strategy ”

          and then Chris makes this comment, “The execs at Enron drive Fords…better blame it on that too…..they ate pizza” utterly devoid of logic and completely missing the relationship already explained to him. Completely missing…”this agenda of using the state to rob Peter, paying Paul, drawing Paul’s enthusiastic support” By the way Chris, this was 17 years ago!

          Chris, are you a Paul?

  61. Daavid A says:

    Chris, are you a wind Robber Barron? It is a question, do you make your money within or connected to the wind energy industry?

    • Chris Barron says:

      LOLOLOL……. *NOW* you want a cordial discussion ? i suppose if you if you can’t find figures which I did not give you then you need another straw to clutch to…..

      I wouldn’t be loyal to myself if i took you seriously at this point, not after all you have done to try to ridicule me.

      Keep on chimping matey

      If it helps, Gail already identified me….. 😉

  62. Daavid A says:

    Chris asks, “?) in what way were the non existent numbers incorrect ?

    When Gail quoted the life span of wind turbines article, and you told her you knew this report to be true all along, and yet you have claimed how successful the albatross of wind is, when it is a fiscal and engineering nightmare, stealing from all, including the poor.

    • Chris Barron says:

      The figures agreed with related to life expectancy.
      My figures of cost/kWh which i still have not given you relate to the 12-20 year lifetime situation,

      If it helps you any, a turbine without subsidy has a breakeven of 8 – 11 years, depending on the installation costs

  63. gator69 says:

    Mensa Moron says:

    “Wind has been successfully used for thousands of years, for pumping water, for milling grains, and latterly for pumping oil from the ground. For over 100 years wind sourced electricity has been a non controversial concept.”

    Yes, and we rode horses for thousands of years, lived in mud huts for thousands of years, died at an early age for thousands of years, used witch doctors for thousand s of years, had slave labor for thousands of years, used stone tools for thousands of years, and listened to Luddites for thousands of years. So what? Strawman much?

    Hey! This windmill may pay for itself in less than half a thousand years…

    “Government bureaucrats have just been given a sobering reminder that you can’t place a wind turbine just anywhere. Welsh officials have been chastised for building a wind turbine in a calm area that will only generate about $8 of electricity per month — a 452-year payback period.

    The Welsh government claims that the turbine is generating a low return because of mechanical problems, reports the Daily Express, but the company that built it says it’s the poor location that’s causing the turbine to underperform.

    “The problem is quite simple — it’s been put in the wrong place,” said Paul Burrell, a wind turbine expert. “It’s very important with any wind turbine to ensure it’s in the most exposed location possible. They need unobstructed access to wind from all directions.

    “Unfortunately the Welsh Government’s one is located in a valley two miles from the sea and has quite a short tower,” he added.

    The wind turbine was built near the headquarters of the Labour Party-controlled Welsh government in 2009, but it’s performance was not monitored until a year ago. The turbine has only generated 33 kilowatts of power per month in that year, meaning it only generates about $8 worth of electricity per month.

    Even if the turbine is repaired, it will still not run at full capacity and won’t generate much more electricity.

    “If this project had been started when Elizabeth I was on the throne, it would only be reaching break-even point now, sixty years into the reign of Elizabeth II,” said Jonathan Isaby, political director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance. “It would seem that the turbine’s installation was nothing more than an obscenely expensive vanity project, with unwitting taxpayers footing the bill.”

    Without massive government support, wind turbines would be confined to side shows. We have shown you that all turbines do is increase the cost of energy while blighting the landscape and killing raptors. Why do you hate the poor? You are a sick man.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Gator, the Wind-barron also thinks that having half the working age population digging holes and the other half filling them in (100% Employment!) is a vibrant economy.

      I kid you not!

      Chris Barron says:
      January 5, 2015 at 1:02 pm

      And then again perhaps I am too old fashioned….because i do wonder about the huge loss of jobs if we do commit to nuclear……what we need at the grass roots level is jobs and by building hundreds of thousands of things using lots of labour, which need servicing every 20 years, is a great start on the road to job security for large numbers of the population….is that what you mean Gail by saying I am looking forward to a collapse of a society, by hoping for more, not fewer jobs ?

      I told him to go read Frederic Bastiat’s The Broken-Window Fallacy

      And we get this the next day:
      Chris Barron says:
      January 6, 2015 at 7:12 pm

      Gail quoted “Most turbines require significant repairs and even complete overhauls in the 5-7 year range.”

      That’s music to my ears Gail…beautiful music.

      It would be stupid of the engineering business to put itself out of business by engineering a machine which has no further use for engineers.

      Why the rush to produce the most energy dense power supplier (albeit temporarily in the grand scheme of life) in the form of nuclear ? Why not make things which require lots of work to keep going, which gives something useful to do for dozens of generations to come.

      I like overhauls, repairs, rebuilds, refurbishments and renewal……some of us live for that, some of us have made a living for 30 years so far from that sort of thing….and the majority of the public seem to have appreciated and benefited from it.

      YUP,YUP a Progressive who has ZERO idea of what economic wealth creation means. No wonder he cannot understand the first thing any of us are saying about how uneconomical Wind Turbines are!

      • Chris Barron says:

        You totally miss the point (probably delinerately)

        With so many unemployed, what we need are jobs.
        The decline of a manufacturing means that ‘real jobs in manufacturing’ have declined , from 27% of GDP in the 1960’s to under 8% today. The vast majority of jobs are now customer services workers and baristas at Starbucks…..not real jobs anyway (said with tongue in cheek)

        So what is the main objection to engineers in workshops building wind turbines, which support another generation…..coffee serving and burger flipping never made any nation great (and lets not mention tax avoidance by Starbucks or food subsidies….)

        The old guard still think they can repair the problems by reopening steel mills, take to logging in a big way and build Cars which fall apart… those days are over…dry your eyes or slip away quietly

    • Chris Barron says:

      I’m glad you posted that and it confirms what I’ve said before…horses for courses….wind will never meet all the needs of any nation.
      Turbine location has always been important, as I said before (yawn)

      Now, if I were to fall for the same pea brained style of argument which says that I am a murderer, then knowing as we do about the undeniable increase in rates of cancer around nuclear power stations, then what name is correct for the person who moans about a few dead raptor near wind turbines, who supports unclear power, without giving a damn about childhood leukemia

      Love the birds, hate the kids…..

      Quote > > > >
      The closer to the nuclear power station, the higher the risk of leukemia and cancer
      In Germany, all cases of cancer of children are being recorded. Therefore it was possible to investigate into the cases of children’s cancer between the years 1980 and 2003. There were 1592 children of age less than five years who got the disease and 4735 healthy children involved in the study.

      The result showed a significantly higher risk to get cancer if the children lived within a circle of less than 5 km around a nuclear power plant:

      According to the normal statistical values, there should have been 48 cases of cancer and 17 cases of leukemia within the above mentioned circle of 5 km around the atomic power plants.
      However there were 77 cases of cancer (60% more than expected) and 37 cases of leukemia (117% more than expected).
      A person directly involved in the study mentioned to Spiegel online, that there might be a higher risk for leukemia even within a circle of 50 km around nuclear power plants.
      On Swiss radio, the leader of the study, Mrs. Maria Blettner said: “We could indeed statistically proof that the risk for small children to get cancer is increased if they grow up in the neighborhood of a nuclear power station. However we do not know what is causing this increased risk. According to our knowledge the radioactive radiation is too low to cause it.”

      And further: “We cannot draw any conclusion for adults – simply because we do not collect the respective data in Germany”

      > > >

      Relax, it’s just a joke 😉

      • gator69 says:

        STRAWMAN ALERT!

        We are discussing wind power (that you support despite the many deaths that result from fuel poverty), that would not exist without massive government support. I have not endorsed nuclear power, epic fail, again. 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          My response was to Gail, Gator.
          Epicer fail…if that is even the way to say it…. not that it bothers me either way lol

        • Chris Barron says:

          It’s always funny to think that people blame fuel poverty related deaths on the existence of wind turbines….which of course isn’t anything like reality…….especially in the UK where most homes are heated by gas….. so come on smart guy…how do wind turbines affect gas prices ?

        • gator69 says:

          No liar, you replied to me, check the thread and you will see your comment is under mine. Plus you referencing the horses I mentioned.

          Mensa must be so proud, what a genius! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Well you don’t want to talk about the topic anymore and just call people liars, when all they do is hit reply in an email. At the top of the email it said Gail Combs..

          You don’t also log on as another person, do you ? 😉

        • gator69 says:

          Wind power doesn’t effect gas prices you moron, they raise electricity rates.

          How is it going with your bank MM? 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          I must tell you about the bank !

          I walked in and said “there’s a Gator on an internet forum I post on, and she/he says that just because they say something is wrong then it is wrong..”….so i asked him/her to elaborate and they said they didn’t have to.

          So I said to the teller (‘teller’ isn’t a word we use for the cashier here, so I’ve demonstrated my understanding of your ways , to prove I am not prejudiced) ” I just looked at my bank balance and it isn’t correct, so i am telling you to change it to a value of my choosing”

          They didn’t do it , sadly.

          Gator, do you have any other figures we could use with respect to the energy mic on the UK….you say that 34% of electricity production from coal is an errant figure…so what is correct, my friend ?

        • gator69 says:

          Maybe you shouldn’t try commenting when you are drunk.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I was thinking the same about you and your sense of humour bypass.

          It’s hilarious to think that a self obsessed American would ever care for real about the death of a single Brit from gas poverty….certainly none of the poor pensioners I know mentioned you, or do you care in the same way that an angel does ?

        • gator69 says:

          Gator said: Yes, and we rode horses for thousands of years…

          Mensa Moron said: I’m glad you posted that and it confirms what I’ve said before…horses for courses….

          Gator quoted: The Welsh government claims that the turbine is generating a low return because of mechanical problems, reports the Daily Express, but the company that built it says it’s the poor location that’s causing the turbine to underperform. “The problem is quite simple — it’s been put in the wrong place,” said Paul Burrell, a wind turbine expert.

          Mensa Moron said: ….wind will never meet all the needs of any nation.
          Turbine location has always been important, as I said before (yawn)

          Now, are you a liar, an idiot, or both?

        • Chris Barron says:

          I always lie…..thats what we do in the oil business,

        • gator69 says:

          And you called me arrogant. You tell bald faced lies, or are an idiot or both, and all you do is smirk.

          Did you ask the teller at the bank if you could adjust your balance with offers to deposit? Or did you hit your head again and forget your failed and ridiculous hypothetical again.

          I hope for your sake you are simply drunk. 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Lolol…I did offer to deposit money…they said the more I offered the more interest they would have.

          You have no idea at all what a balancing mechanism is and you think it is merely a financial ‘trick’….but then you have never had to meet supply with demand, or realised that at times of peak you have to find ten times more electricity than at the time of lowest demand…..flicking a switch to make that happen just isn’t possible in the real world……..

        • gator69 says:

          STRAWMAN ALERT

          I did not ask about interest rates. Did the teller say she would increase your account balance based solely upon your offer to make a deposit.

          Obviously I am not the party who cannot figure out what a balancing mechanism is and is not. It is not real. It could be, but isn’t.

          You are a drunken (I am giving you a huge benefit of doubt MM) weasel! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          So the person with nothing remotely resembling facts and figures, still has nothing remotely resembling facts and figures. Considering they claim to be someone who knows about facts and figures there is only one fact which figures here…..

        • Chris Barron says:

          “STRAWMAN ALERT”

          Lololol….how many episodes of Batman did it take to make you a saviour…not many I imagine

          Strawman Alert….prepare yourself Robin….. lololol

          Drama queen

        • gator69 says:

          You want facts and figures? How about some regarding the suffering of your neighbors because of your idiocy.

          Opponents of the Government policy have claimed the generous grants awarded to wind farm developers have pushed electricity costs through the roof, leaving Scotland with some of the highest energy bills in Europe.

          The subsidies were introduced across the UK last year and are expected to have cost up to £1 billion.

          They offer a huge benefit to the energy companies as they push ahead with wind power projects but their cost in added on to household bills.

          The subsidies are said to be rising faster than inflation, with wages struggling to keep up.

          Almost 30% of Scottish
          residents are being left in fuel poverty and Energy Action Scotland claims the figure could be as high as 40%.

          I would never do this to my neighbors, or yours.

          Wind turbines would not be viable without enormous government support, support that is killing neighbors. Happy?

        • Chris Barron says:

          Hmmm, yes you really are a drama queen….Isn’t there a more pressing issue in your own home ? Instead of saving the world start where you are and work outwards. Just advice……

          As I have said, the majority of old people who die from the cold do so because they cannot afford to pay their GAS….that’s G A S bills….which have nothing to do with wind energy……..

          It’s actually insulting to us here that you don’t know this, yet you decide that your holier than thou attitude is appropriate.

          Fuel poverty is not a problem…….there is lots of fuel, not a problem.
          Fuel pricing is the problem, as is financial poverty

        • gator69 says:

          Odd, usually when there is ‘even one life’ to save, leftists are willing to move Heaven and Earth. But you don’t care. You are more than willing to watch at least one of your neighbors freeze to death for your wind turbine cause.

          You are sick.

        • Chris Barron says:

          You really don’t understand that my neighbour’s ability to pay to fuel their GAS boiler has nothing to do with ELECTRICITY prices, do you ?

          A wind turbine was installed, a small subisdy was paid, and someone with GAS boiler they couldn’t afford to pay to run dies ?

          I suppose wind is air and air is a gas…perhaps that’s where you’re getting confuzzled ?

        • gator69 says:

          Mensa Moron says: “STRAWMAN ALERT”

          Lololol….how many episodes of Batman did it take to make you a saviour…not many I imagine

          Strawman Alert….prepare yourself Robin….. lololol

          Drama queen

          The ‘drama’ stopped your bogus strawman bs, as intended. You really should stop now before you make all leftists to appear as stupid as you are.

        • Chris Barron says:

          There you go again, upping the ante, as if it will happen just because you say it will (yet again)…..

          Come on Magic mind, show us what you have …..

        • gator69 says:

          STRAWMAN ALERT

          Said anything about gas?

          Opponents of the Government policy have claimed the generous grants awarded to wind farm developers have pushed electricity costs through the roof, leaving Scotland with some of the highest energy bills in Europe.

          So, how about that teller, your broken window fallacy, your lie about to whom you responded, and your bogus claim to be a Mensa member?

          Stamping your tiny feet and screaming makes you look exactly like the child that you are. Keep it up! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          The person who says that folk here die in the cold because they cannot afford to fuel their gas powered homes……

        • Chris Barron says:

          And what type of nonsense is a ‘Broken Window Fallacy’ ?
          You have a term for everything which doesn’t matter

        • gator69 says:

          So which of your neighbors would you be willing to kill off first?

        • Chris Barron says:

          That’s a very good question, I never thought I would ever get to choose.
          The one with the devil dogs look a bit suspect…
          And then there’s the little guy with the big pickup, who never takes it off road but takes up two parking spaces.
          There’s an old right winger down the road who ‘hates immigrants’ , his time was over a decade ago.

          What about you, which of your neighbours would you do away with if you could get away with it ?

        • gator69 says:

          Morton says: And what type of nonsense is a ‘Broken Window Fallacy’ ?
          You have a term for everything which doesn’t matter

          Don’t look now, but our ignorance is showing! 😆

        • gator69 says:

          Sorry! Typo alert! I sincerely did not mean to call you a ‘Morton’, or imply any ignorance other than your own. I just can hardly see the keyboard as I am LMAO! 😆

          The “broken Window fallacy’ has been mentioned in replies to your dumb ass before on this very thread, but now in your drunken stupor, it finally dawns on you to ask what it is. 😆

          You would be my favorite clown if you did not hate your poor neighbors as you do.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I got out of jail for not long ago and don’t want to go back again for really killing them
          I thought you were for real but am glad you cleared it up that it was merely a thought exercise or i would have really killed them
          And in any way, they’re rich

        • Chris Barron says:

          It’s like brother Stalin said ““Death solves all problems – no man, no problem.””

        • gator69 says:

          Sicko says: What about you, which of your neighbours would you do away with if you could get away with it ?

          I wouldn’t. Not even if you were my neighbor. That is only one distinct difference between us for which I will eternally be proud, and grateful.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Hmmm, attention seeker too……..
          Likes attention, loves drama, flamboyant personality and prideful too

          You’re the next psychotic leader we’ve been waiting for….can you make us feel grateful though ? 😉

        • gator69 says:

          Sleep it off Chris, you will still be an idiot in the morning, but at least you will be a sober idiot.

        • Chris Barron says:

          You gonna wait up for me again ?

      • Gail Combs says:

        An Explanation of the “Balancing Mechanism” starts on page 8. It is based on the international aspects of the Keynesian model and fiat money.

        …Wheatly argued that if England increased her agricultural imports because of a crop failure, this in itself would increase the incomes of exporters to England, and that the ability of such exporters to purchase English goods would therefore be greater that before, even without price changes. To some extent, in other words, the balance of payments tended to adjust itself by means of changes in purchasing power at home and abroad…..

        Central banks can interfere as described here: A short history of currency swaps
        ……

        After Clinton’s 1995 Grand Experiment, (I call it T*R*E*A*S*O*N) we now know after 20 years that the increasing trade deficit in China’s favor has not been offset by an increased growth in jobs in the USA. SURPRISE!!!

        2012: Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost more than 2.7 million jobs between 2001 and 2011, with job losses in every state

        And more recently on December 2014
        New Report: Growing Trade Deficit with China Knocks Out 3.2 Million U.S. Jobs: Every State Hit Hard Since China’s Entry into WTO – America’s surging trade deficit with China has cost more than 3.2 million U.S. jobs – the overwhelming majority of them in manufacturing

        Manufacturing jobs actually create wealth and they are being replaced by jobs as burger flippers and store clerks which do not create wealth.

        In other words REAL WORLD DATA shows the usual Keynesian model = Fabian Bull Shit.

        Gator, as you know E.M. Smith studied economics he has an interesting article Cameron meets Smith, Keynes, and Laffer

        ….[Government] REVENUE is to grow GDP, then you get 18% of a larger total. That’s why Reagan and Kennedy both cut tax rates and got more total revenue… Economics does not care what party you belong to, nor what your “motive” is. It doesn’t care if you are an “Evil Republican” or a “Nice Democrat”. It works the same for all comers and regardless of motivation. So no, you will NOT be able to raise more REVENUE by playing with rates, allowances, deductions, whatever. 18% of GDP is IT. After that, it’s all about “more GDP”. And how do you get more GDP? You tax the creation of it LESS, not more…

        Closing Rant

        So there we have it. Proof once again that some humans are incapable of learning from history and must repeat it. Oddly, those on the Progressive (tax) side seem incapable of learning from either their history nor from their more recent repeats of it. One can only speculate on “why”.

        Perhaps they are simply driven by greed, envy, being covetous. Perhaps they are simply too stupid to learn.

        Perhaps they know they will not get more revenue, but the sheer Joy of Harming those they despise is what they desire. Like windowbreakers the world over, they are not interested in a positive outcome.….

        That it has been nearly 700 years (that we have in the easy to find quotes!) that this effect of greater revenues from lower rates has been known; yet we still do not have leaders that recognize it today, is at best depressing. That as recently as the 1980s the Republicans knew it, and that in 1963 the Democrats new it; yet today NEITHER PARTY seems aware of it, or willing to act on the awareness; is worse than depressing….
        chiefio(DOT)wordpress.com/2012/02/25/cameron-meets-smith-keynes-and-laffer/

        Well it seems it actually is all about the joy of harming others.

        KEYNES AT HARVARD

        ….The first thing Keynes did was to disclaim any connection with marxism. This was an elementary Fabian socialist diversionary move to distract the public from noting Karl Marx’s projection of a “mixed economy” in the Communist Manifesto of 1847. Academic pundits suddenly developed a conscious amnesia about the fact that Marx’s socialist forces intended to “use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie” and that private savings would be eliminated by the simple expedient of, “centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”(1) This is pure Keynesianism 45 years before Keynes was born. The elimination of private savings and the “euthenasia of the rentier” was the touchstone of the entire Keynesian edifice. Government manipulation of credit policies and regulations that control production movements to undermine the principle of property rights was boldly and directly proclaimed by Marx:

        Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.(2)

        Of course, the heavy lever to make all this possible is proclaimed as, “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”(3)
        (wwwDOT)keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch10.html

        Given the positions taken by Chris the Wind-Baron here and on other threads I can only conclude as E.M. did “…the sheer Joy of Harming those [he] despise[s] is what [he] desires. Like windowbreakers the world over, [he is] not interested in a positive outcome.”

        • Chris Barron says:

          A classic example of someone who hears of a term, reads one meaning of it, and thinks every instance must relate to just the one meaning.
          Of course, as you’ve had time now to double check that your interpretation couldn’t possibly have been wrong, and found out that it is, you’ve come out with the guns set to auto-hate

          in terms of electricity distribution, the balancing mechanism has nothing to do with banking…..

          From Exelon
          “This is one of the tools National Grid uses to balance electricity supply and demand close to real time. It is needed because electricity cannot be stored and must be manufactured at the time of demand. Where National Grid predicts that there will be a discrepancy between the amount of electricity produced and that which will be in demand during a certain time period, they may accept a ‘bid’ or ‘offer’ to either increase or decrease generation (or consumption). The balancing mechanism is used to balance supply and demand in each half hour trading period of every day.”

          Perhaps, it would be more apt to talk about a very dangerous situation whcih happens hour by hour on the national grids of all countries, known as ‘imbalance’, or simply, what happens when you have brought enough generation capability online in order to meet the demand requirement of the last half hour, only to find that demand falls dramatically. A surplus of generation is problematic because it involves generators driving other generators, possibly into dangerous overspeed conditions. The other imbalance condition which has inherent dangers is probably more simple to imagine, the problem of undergeneration, or not being able to meet a sudden rise in demand.

          It is well known that TV scheduling plays a part in all electricity generator’s forecasts….in the UK in particular when breaks for advertising are scheduled to take place a perceivable increase in electricity demand is observed, as a result of millions of people all turning on their kettles to make a cup of tea at the same time.

          This well known phenomenon is called ‘TV pickup’ and is explained more here
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup …scroll down to the paragraph called ‘RESPONSE’ , here’s what it tells you “The National Grid Energy Balancing Team is responsible for ensuring an adequate supply of electricity and try to ensure a frequency of between 49.5 and 50.5 Hz is maintained.[3][5] In order to prepare for pickups they run a computer program that compares the current day with corresponding periods over the past five years to predict the size of demand.[1]

          Diagram of a typical pumped storage power station
          It is important to predict demand as precisely as possible as electricity grids are not capable of storing electricity in large quantities and all power stations have a lead-in time before generation can begin.[6] Balancing teams attempt to meet short term fluctuations with “fast reserves” that are quick to come online, backed up with longer term fossil fuel-based “balance mechanism units”.[3] The shortest lead-in times are on pumped storage reservoirs, such as the Dinorwig power station that has the fastest response time of any pumped storage station in the world at just 12 seconds to produce 1320 MW.[6] Once the longer term fossil fuel stations, which have response times around half an hour, and nuclear power stations, which can take even longer, come online then pumped storage stations can be turned off and the water returned to the reservoir.[6]”

          Where there is imbalance between supply and demand there needs to be restoration of balance. In banking, a financial mechanism is used to address the imbalance,

          In energy supply systems real time energy generation is being referred to. It is quite clear that when the grid reaches a dangerously low or high frequency that financial bid will not resolve the problem….bids will not speed up generators, only short term fast startup generation systems can provide that level of required certainty.

  64. gator69 says:

    Gail, I’m beginning to think that Chris’ membership is with a different Mensa, ‘Morons Endorsing the New Stone Age’.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Given his ability to read and to reason, I am beginning to think you are correct.

      However many many people do not ‘get’ that having the Banksters print fairy dust monopoly money as Government loans that are used to pay people is NOT wealth creation.

      That a make work job that is not required is not only useless but a wast of economic wealth.

      That wealth creation is those nasty things Progressives HATE like mining, logging, manufacturing and farming.

      • gator69 says:

        Why work when you can live off OPM? I guess Mensa is the new O-P-M den.

      • Chris Barron says:

        As those things have always been bought with debt, real wealth in industry has never existed. The reported wealth has never made it to the citizens. Your share of your country’s perceived wealth will never make it to your bank account will it.
        Wonder why not

        • gator69 says:

          😆 😆 😆

          MM has more genius from on high!

          “real wealth in industry has never existed”

          You are a certifiable idiot if you really believe that ( and you do, and you are).

          Please, tell me how the banking industry works! 😆

          Mensa Moron says:

          I must try your realworl/imagination interface technique with my bank

          “Hey, change my bank balanace to read £8million, because your balance is wrong” !

          gator69 says:

          .If your bank calculates your balance based upon offers to deposit and withdraw, then I would support your efforts.

          😆 😆 😆

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s