Climate Alarmists Are Fine With Killing Off The Raptor And Bat Population, To Stop The Scary Voices In Their Heads

ScreenHunter_7983 Mar. 17 08.52


About stevengoddard

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

382 Responses to Climate Alarmists Are Fine With Killing Off The Raptor And Bat Population, To Stop The Scary Voices In Their Heads

  1. emsnews says:

    Well, the polar bears and penguins aren’t being killed. (sarcasm)

  2. Chris Barron says:

    Killing off the raptor and bat population ?

    For years Scottish gamekeepers have been trying to do just that…and all along they only needed to put up a wind turbine and THE RAPTOR AND BAT POPULATION WILL DIE. (what, everywhere in the world ?)

    Too much hype all over, no ?

  3. Chris Barron says:

    Hawk Watch International (We must assume they care), don’t seem to make anything like such childish hyperbole laden statements regarding risks to raptors

  4. Chris Barron says:

    Just to see if this site even worked…the very first location and bird type (Barre Falls and Bald Eagle) shows an upward trend in population….

    Scare yourself as much as you like, but don’t expect others to be so self indulgent

    Check the graphs out for yourself…it’s difficult to pinpoint in which milennium extinction is going to happen, if at all.

    • Barre Falls, Mass? Really? The bald eagle population in Massachusetts? It went up from 1 to 2, that’s a great increase.

      • Chris Barron says:

        It takes two to tango

        • A few wind farms should be kill all of those in short order.

          Please disclose your financial interest in the wind power business.

        • D. Self says:

          So after all the work to revive the Raptors, the government now believes there are too many and letting windmills cull the population is acceptable? By the way were are the missing years between 2007 and 2014?

          SE Michigan and adjacent Canada, is one of the largest Migratory routes for Raptors on the PLANET. Our great Governor in Michigan wants to go wind farm loco and Canada is already wind farm nuts in this region. So lets put more killing machines in a high risk region.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Please disclose your financial interest in the wind power business.”

          As paranoid as a…..

    • A C Osborn says:

      Two can play at that game.

      A 50% reduction in Bald Eagles at Goshute Mountains.

      Then we have this
      Chris Barron says: March 17, 2015 at 1:28 pm
      And which alarmist would that be, I have no problem with CO2, same as you….

      That takes away the last possible excuse for building Wind Turbines in the first place.

      Apart from that let’s have a look at the Pros & Cons of Wind Turbines.

      Makes some Land owners a lot of Money (is that a pro?)
      Makes Some Companies a Lot of Money
      Makes some Entrepenuers a Lot of Money.
      Makes some Mps/Ex Mps a Lot of Money.
      Employs a few hundred People.
      Supplies some Intermittent Energy.

      Doubles the price of Electricity for Land Based Turbines.
      Trebles the price of Electricity for Sea Based Turbines.
      KIll Birds & Bats.
      Exports Industry due to High electricity prices.
      Puts workers on the dole for the same reason.
      Makes life hell for Pensioners for the same reason.
      Increases our Imports as none of the Turbines are wholly made here.
      Causes illness in people due to subsonics.
      Require Back up reserves for when the wind is not blowing.
      Makes those reserves less Efficient because they are not running optimally.
      Despoil the look of the Countryside.
      Distorts the Market because of their subsidies making other generation methods more expensive because they also demand subsidies to make investment worthwhile.

      That should do for now.

      • Chris Barron says:

        Coal is so good right ?

        “Distorts the Market because of their subsidies making other generation methods more expensive because they also demand subsidies to make investment worthwhile.”

        They are having their pre existing subsidies cut…I doubt you can support your assertion in light of that fact…I think what you’re projecting is your own idea that you would whinge about wanting some more subsidies if you were in coal…..

        I’m not trying to sell the idea of coal….I just see a lot of misinformation and hope you don’t want the same light of criticism shone in the general direction of coal, or gas, oil or nuclear…you know those are all far from perfect….cause financial instability, wars, poverty and death

        Well, I’m assuming youi already know that ?

        • A C Osborn says:

          You do know how to make us all laugh, the cost of Coal Generation is well known.
          There is no new coal generation in the UK and it does not get “Subsidies” for it’s Electricity Generation.
          If it anything like the EROI for coal in the USA, then it is a STAR performer, 4 times better than wind, which I bet does NOT include the cost of Back-up.

        • A C Osborn says:

          How about answering all the Cons then?

        • A C Osborn says:

          So back it up with facts, Mr Big Windy.
          Show us all the “cause financial instability, wars, poverty and death” from Gas, Coal Oil & Nuclear ELECTRICITY GENERATION.
          As that is what we are discussing here, the DIRECT results of WIND TURBINE ELECTRICITY GENERATION.

        • Chris Barron says:

          AC…you are aware that 50% of UK coal comes from Russia aren;t you…that the recent Ukrainian conflict was about coal rights as much as it was about anything else (Ukraine wanted to remain European and not hand it’s coal to Russia for next to nothing)

        • Stephen Richards says:

          A recent UK report declared off-shore wind to be 25 times more expensive than gas and clean coal is still cheaper than gas

      • Chris Barron says:

        A C Osborn
        “And which alarmist would that be, I have no problem with CO2, same as you….

        That takes away the last possible excuse for building Wind Turbines in the first place.”

        You actually think that reducing CO2 is a good argument ? You do know that it’s a gas and moves about, it doesn’t just stay in one place, unlike aluminium in the sea ? 😉

    • Snowleopard says:

      Perhaps wind farms will be out of business before actual extinction. And species may still survive when they have habitat without wind farms. Where wind farms exist though, they are severely reducing raptor populations.

      • Stephen Richards says:

        I’m looking forward to an era when the wind turbine become nesting sites for the large and small birds. That’s after all the subsidies have been removed and the companies gone bankrupt.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “That’s after all the subsidies have been removed and the companies gone bankrupt”

          The companies may go bankrupt, but there will have been a large proportion syphoned off into the accounts of the scam wind entrepreneurs and robber wind Barrons.

        • nielszoo says:

          I caught an article a few months back where the Germans were using the ground up carbon fiber / polyester resin blades from failed / decommissioned wind generators to fuel cement kilns. That would leave those nice towers around for nesting sites… so they could topple over from corrosion in the future… still killing birds.

  5. rah says:

    Every year during the winter and spring I see the hawk yearlings lined up on the fence poles of the fences along the cotton and rice fields of I-55 in SE Missouri and NE Arkansas. Very rare to see a mature one along there in that open country. Often see a young one sitting every 1/2 mile or so and they are almost always facing the road. I guess they have not yet found their own territory and hunting the grass of the median and shoulders and road kill provides a good source of food. On occasion I see one on a kill they’ve made and every great once in awhile see one actually make a kill as I’m passing by.

    Those young hawks and the crows learn to use the turbulence of passing trucks to gain altitude. Sometimes it seems like they’re actually playing when they swoop across just two or three feet over the rig using the air pushed up by the “condo sleeper”. Though some of them get tagged it seems that proportionally very few do since my impression is I only see about one dead one every time I pass that way.

  6. bleakhouses says:

    Nice to know that the EPA will soon be loosenening it’s restrictions on private use of private lands; after all threatening one species is meaningless in the big picture of the ecosystem.

  7. richard says:

    an eco system might be being wiped but it is being replaced by a stronger non – indigenous species.

    After loss of habitat, spread of non-native species is the biggest cause of loss of native species, it costs countries billions to try and control.

  8. EternalOptimist says:

    I understand Chris’s point about there being an acceptable casualty rate and that casualties are not good but not terminal.
    It’s a pity the same logic is not applied fairly, like with oil spills

    • Chris Barron says:

      I agree, it’s like fish are not important…not just fish, but the smaller creatures and even microbes in the sea. A small oil spill is always devastating in it’s impact but, because it’s out of sight usually nobody needs to care

      • EternalOptimist says:

        So you agree that if an oil baron get prosecuted for killing a golden eagle, a wind baron should be prosecuted for killing a golden eagle.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Interesting point. The prevailing arrangement for decades has been ‘the polluter pays’ So sure, wind turbine operators should be held liable for environmental damage.

          It might surprise you to know that environmental financial support already takes place by wind farm owners in many cases, which goes on various technologies to scare birds, as well as rehoming and other environmental projects. Even then, they still make profitable electricity.

        • Winnipeg Boy says:

          Mr Barron is loving this it seems. Spinning like a turbine. Regarding coment below “wind turbine operators should be held liable for environmental damage” So we the people give money to the government to subsidize wind power, they kill some birds, pay a fine back to the government, who grants a study to an Ivory tower socialite from NY who has never actually seen a live bird. Trickle down economics with a leftist skew. In the end, they still run out of my money.

        • nielszoo says:

          C. Barron. Where is your proof that wind generators make profitable electricity? Considering that they are heavily subsidized and use more energy to manufacture, maintain and decommission than they produce it their actual operational lifetime the ONLY way they are profitable is forcing taxpayers to cover the financial loses up front. It’s even worse when you consider that you need to keep enough dispatchable generation capacity online to cover for the wind farms when they can’t produce. Oh, and they only manage to produce, on a global average, 13% of their rated capacity and NONE of them have ever made it even close to the supposed 20 year design lifetime. They all HAVE TO BE backed up by gas or coal plants. The fact that they are an ecological nightmare is just a by product.

      • AndyG55 says:

        ” even microbes in the sea”

        lol.. microbes in the sea eat the oil spill eventually. !

        Your ignorance is starting to show. .. more.

        • Chris Barron says:

          So thats official.
          ALL microbes in the sea, according to ANDYG, they all eat oil and none of them (actually the large majority of them) are negatively affected by an oil spill.

          Good one Andy…… big sigh

  9. richard says:

    loss of habitat meaning cutting down of forests for bio- fuels, housing , cutting down forests for windturbines . You could say the ploughing up of prairie grass in the 19th century was a start, prairie grass can flower in droughts and is home to many species of insects, that are eaten by……….

  10. drcrinum says:

    I was walking out of the grocery store this week pushing my cart of groceries when I was confronted by a representative of a green energy company who wanted to convince me to change my electrical provider to his company…a firm claiming to be 100% green energy (wind and solar). I looked at him with distaste and exclaimed: “Bird killer!” As I walked away, his response, accompanied by laughter, was: “Well, admit it — you eat chicken, don’t you?”

  11. annieoakley says:

    Wind farms are ugly, noisy, destroy birds and bats. They will wreck the ecosystem you alarmists believe you created. It takes far more energy to make these things than they could possibly yield, ever. They catch fire Only a fool or someone with a 401 k invested in a wind company could believe wind turbines are a viable solution to a non-problem.

    • Gail Combs says:


      Try telling that to Chris The Wind Barron who is buzy here defending wind turbines for all he is worth.

      • Chris Barron says:


        ‘+1’ = the blind leading the blind

        • Hugh K says:

          Windmills aren’t just killing birds…they’ve killed your ability to feel remorse. Sad….

        • Chris Barron says:

          I’m supposed to feel remorse from reading lies and hype….good job I’m not religious…

          I have said in previous messages on this subject, that I do feel remorse for the death of any animal…but I try to keep perspective – if i am to feel remorse for a few raptors killed by turbines I should be suicidal when considering all of the many more raptors killed in the more usual ways

    • Chris Barron says:

      Having already posted information, not just hearsay evidence like you, it’s back to you to show your figures….here’s mine, showing that Wind has an EROI above that of nuclear power.
      (I’ve increased the order for calculators to 2 now….anyone else need one ?)

      • Chris Barron says:

        Or if you need data with error bars…

        • Chris Barron says:

          Or if you prefer bars and a change of colour…

        • Chris Barron says:

          Whichever way you graph it the data tells the same story. Energy DOES produce more energy than it consumes, and in that respect it is superior to nuclear

        • Chris Barron says:

          * Wind Energy

        • Snowleopard says:

          In the real world most folks are interested in $ return on $ invested with priority toward the rate and reliability of that return.. Then there is the cost of backup power for downtime (lack of wind and turbine repair/ maintenance). Folks in my neighborhood with wind turbines seem to be always fixing them. IF your data is correct, it still looks like coal may be the better option, and once I’m done clearing and thinning on this land, I might swap out my wood stove for coal.

        • Chris Barron says:


          $out for $in ?
          I showed yesterday how well wind does.

          Take a 60 year period
          Cost for first 2MW turbine = £3 million (well above average)
          Replace turbine nacelle at years 15,30 and 45, at a cost of £400,000 each time

          Hardware cost, including installation and land purchase = £4.2 million

          Using an output rate of 20%, this 2MW turbine produces the equivalent of a constantly turning 400kw turbine

          Are any of these figures contentious for you yet. If so which ones ?

          Now, in 60 years there are 525600 hours

          525600 multiplied by 0.4MW (400kw) = 210240MWh total electricity produced in 60 years by this one location

          Currently the electricity price is £55 per MWh

          £55 multiplied by 210240 = £11563200 revenue

          Profit = revenue – cost
          Profit = 11563200 – 4200000
          Profit = £763200 Without any subsidies

          Are any of these figures contentious ? If so, which ones

        • A C Osborn says:

          I shot this down yesterday, your lovely “PROFIT” is totally at the cost to the Customer, as you forgot to add in the Subsidies that we pay in the UK.
          £45 per MWh for Land Based Turbines and £100 for Sea based Turbines.
          EXTRA Cost to the customer £45*210240 = £9460800 + Back up for land based, let’s call it £10M per Turbine.
          EXTRA Cost to the customer £100*210240 = £21024000 + Back up for Sea based, let’s call it £22M per Turbine.
          Doesn’t look such a good proposition from our side of the deal does it?

        • A C Osborn says:

          Like I said to you before, there is no need for subsidies based on your of figures, so lobby for their removal.
          Energy Companies promoting or using Wind Turbines are PARASITES and so are the poeple working for or weith them.

      • A C Osborn says:

        I am not sure who put that graph together, but they made few mistakes along the way.
        The “energy” from Oil far outways any energy put in to it extract it as without it the world STOPS moving. It does not Generate “energy” in the conventional sense it lubricates every moving part in the world and provides Transport energy for everything that moves and it supplies the basis of every piece of “plastic” as well.
        Oil should never be used to generate Electricity if that is what they were measuring.
        I also do not understand why Nuclear in the USA has such a low EROI either.
        In the UK Nuclear has been producing 7GW practically for 24/7/365 for the last 40 odd years.
        The small amount of downtime last year was a very rare exception.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I believe you have misunderstood the graph

          The graph does not say that oil costs energy…oil is actually the benchmark.

          It is widely accepted that about 1/50th of the content of oil’s usable energy is used in it’s production an despatch….which lives a great return on energy used during production

          “Oil should never be used to generate Electricity if that is what they were measuring.”
          Oil is used sometimes in ast startup short term sources int he form of diesel generators which are sometimes required to be brought on line to top up the grid.
          The graph does merely say ‘energy’ and not electricity, the use of the energy is not tied to one output product (electricity, or transport or whatever) In that sense it is a fair comparison. The mention of joules on the x axis confirms that

          “I also do not understand why Nuclear in the USA has such a low EROI either.
          In the UK Nuclear has been producing 7GW practically for 24/7/365 for the last 40 odd years.”

          The EROI figure includes every energy input, so that will include everything from mining, refining, transporting, protecting (a huge security issue demands large amounts of energy wasted just to keep a 1kg block in a warehouse) as well as plant efficiency.

          nuclear efficiency is about 0.27%….produced as a ratio of all the energy which makes it to the grid to all the available energy in the fuel. Basically, using atoms to heat water is terribly inefficient because not enough heat transfer can take place to capitalise on all the available energy…or put another way, nuclear reactions are too powerful to use in the conventional way currently try to (boiling water to make steam). To date over 99% of all the available energy in uranium has been wasted.

        • A C Osborn says:

          What a convenient way to measure the efficiency of Nuclear energy generation, basing it on all the energy available in the raw product, why do they not do the same for Wind and Solar then?
          After all a wind turbine only produces about 0.00000000001% of all the wind in the world doesn’t it?
          How about Solar? What percent of the Energy in the Sun does a Solar panel make?
          Everybody knows that Nuclear Energy is as “free” as wind and solar energy are “free”.
          In fact you have to use energy to turn the nuclear process off once it has been started.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I’m not arguing with you AC Osborn, just reminding you that ALL efficiency measurements are a ratio of OUT/IN

          And yes, thankfully it is very convenient… else could we measure energy efficiency if not by seeing how much energy is available and comparing it to how much makes it to the output ? Perhaps you can suggest an alternative ?

        • A C Osborn says:

          But you are arguing with me and also lying.
          I have just looked up the efficiency of a Nuclear Power Station.
          You said “nuclear efficiency is about 0.27%”
          This says around 35%.
          Why don’t you go and arhue with them?

        • Chris Barron says:

          You bitch about wind and then point me to a site which shows wind is about as efficient as nuclear, according to their graph.

          The analysis of efficiency of nuclear plant is little bit different to coal or wind because of the double conversion. On the steam turbine side they use the rankine cycle with steam temperature at saturation point. This gives them efficiency aroung 38%. Energy release in a nuclear fission is extremely high, and very small amount of it goes to heat up the steam. So the overall efficiency generally comes over at 0.27%.

        • A C Osborn says:

          It is no good wriggling, the accepted efficiency is 38%, not 0.27%, you lied to suit your purpose.

      • Snowleopard says:

        Sixty years??? I’m sure it’s possible to build wind turbines that last sixty years, but can you show me any wind turbines that age still in service? If not, sixty year wind turbines are an unsubstantiated claim.

        Can you show me audited total cost vs actual real production value figures for any wind farm installation over even twenty years that show actual production value exceeding total cost where subsidies are counted as costs? In public power production subsidies need to be considered as public costs. Total cost needs also to include the cost of replacement energy during downtime and the monetary unit used needs to be corrected to constant value using the same metric on both sides of the equation.

        In looking at smaller wind turbines, my land has good wind sites but I’ve yet to find a system likely to break even for me, even counting subsidies as cost reduction. System costs would also include the necessary inverter, batteries and generator etc. to keep me in power when the turbine isn’t generating.

  12. TomE says:

    If the ROI is so great on wind turbines why do they need subsidies from the government? Why do they need taxpayer money? Is it because they are not efficient, not reliable or just to make companies like GE richer?

    • Chris Barron says:

      None of the above TomE

      The return on financial investment for wind is a very long wait.

      The government *Forced* energy companies to go down the renewables route and the industry kicked back. At threat of legal action the energy companies got the government to agree to provide subsidies, because the energy co’s had not made a contingency fund for such an action.

      The government agreed a short term subsidy period for each wind farm…the subsidies do not last forever…..within the lifetime of the first turbine at a single location the subsidy will end, because the site will be in profit then and able to pay for itself….in later years, when the nacelle (at the top of the tower) has been replaced for a very much cheaper refurbished unit the return on financial investment is very high compared to a lot of conventional businesses.


      As time goes on the very large turbine nacelles will enter the refurbishment chain.

      • A C Osborn says:

        Mr Barron, please provide the Evidence for the “At threat of legal action the energy companies got the government to agree to provide subsidies”.

        • Chris Barron says:

          The lobbyists in America can answer that one, they did the groundwork on it.

          You just seem to want to believe in conspiracies…….do you honestly think the energy companies who were ticking along quite nicely on one business model were keen to have to diversify into renewables, when they knew how much it would cost them ?

          The wind companies are onto a winner, they know it, and they don’t want anyone to believe it because they want this future market to themselves

        • A C Osborn says:

          That is where you are in ignorance then, you are US centric, what about the rest of the world?
          Show me where the UK Energy Companies were going to sue the UK Government.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I’ve done enough of your homework for you, so no

          I’ve shown you the figures, explained how efficiency is calculated and how wind turbines are financially viable over the long run.

          Now you start proving things to me….prove that wind turbines are NOT financially viable (show your working)
          Prove that wind turbines consume more energy than they return (show your working out)

          Explain an alternative method for calculating energy efficiency to the one you refuse to accept and which is widely accepted in engineering circles (explain why the traditional methods are inadequate)

          Do I need to order a calculator for you too ?

        • A C Osborn says:

          You lied about the Efficiency of Nuclear Plants, what else are you lying about?
          I have shown my workings above, they may be “viable” to the Foreign Manufacturers and the Energy Companies but they are far from “vaible” to the Customer. £10M not viable for land based and £22M not viable for Sea Based.
          But then you do not care about that do you?

        • Chris Barron says:

          “You lied about the Efficiency of Nuclear Plants, what else are you lying about?
          I have shown my workings above, they may be “viable” to the Foreign Manufacturers and the Energy Companies but they are far from “vaible” to the Customer. £10M not viable for land based and £22M not viable for Sea Based.
          But then you do not care about that do you?”

          You’re quite special aren’t you !

          you showed no working out for anything, and posted merely a link to a single poorly constructed website. Well done you, you won a free calculator

        • A C Osborn says:

          You seem to have missed one of my posts then.

    • A C Osborn says:

      Because their ROI does not include the cost or energy input for the back up that is required for when they are producing Nothing.
      If you have to build a backup, why bother with a Wind turbine, just use the back up at it’s maximum efficiency instead of having to throttle it when the wind is blowing.
      I would not be surprised if the EROI is also based on Plated output rather than actual output.
      As we know some UK wind trubines have never even made enough electricity to pay for the fuel to bring them to their site let alone their manufacture.
      It is just one big money making scam, which Mr Baron is enjoying being part of.

      • Chris Barron says:

        I see what you’re trying to say….but when they shut off the coal station here they don’t build into the price the cost of backup…..all electricity on the grid is available for use equally

        “As we know some UK wind trubines have never even made enough electricity to pay for the fuel to bring them to their site let alone their manufacture.”
        I am in the UK, which turbine are you talking about ?

        If you look at how much energy it took to build a coal fired station and compared it to how much was generated, after just 6 months then you will see that it never produced enough energy to pay for itself, and didn’t produce enough to cancel out the amount which was used to construct it.

        When looking at wind turbines it has to be remembered that they can be on site for 60 years….(refurbished several times of course) and make much profit over the 60 years, both financial profit and EROI. Looking for 100% return on investment in 7 years is unrealistic, which is different to saying they are unfeasible

        • A C Osborn says:

          Wrong again, that took them down after 5 years because they were complete and utter crap.
          Several times in 60 Years, you really are having a laugh. How often are they going to be changing the Blades?
          How often are they going to be changing the Bearings?
          How often are they going to be changing the Gear Boxes?
          Assuming that do not get blown over or catch fire that is.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Some pertinent points, all of which can be addressed if you visit the website of an y of the the companies which have been listed in previous threads on this matter.
          Alternatively google for ‘wind turbine refurbishment’ and you can submerge yourself in a wealth of relevant information

          Generally a 15 – 20 year program is considered reasonable, given MTTFF rates for the components you listed

        • A C Osborn says:

          When they shut down a Coal or Gas fired Power Station it is PLANNED and as you say it is a simple case of ensuring that that period is covered. However Wind is erratic and cannot be planned, so the Back up has to be available all the time.
          Do you really think that you are so superior to the other people on these web sites that you can be so condescending, do you actually think we don’t know how poor Wind Turbine performance is.
          We can read Newspapers, web sites and the National Grid.
          Perhaps it is you who should “Sod off”.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Look,I’m answering all your questions and you keep changing tack to a new insult.
          Stay and respond to my answers and then you can call it a discussion…but don’t go asking a question and not wait for the answer – as if the mere act of asking the question proves you are having a discussion…because it does not

          “When they shut down a Coal or Gas fired Power Station it is PLANNED ”

          My wife’s best friend’s husband works for Scottish Power, in a team of 12 engineers, performing maintenance and emergency repairs at the local power station.

          His very existence disproves what you said, his experience is of often frequent breakdowns of the turbine, the generator, the switching gear, the transformers….etc etc
          It his job to fix the faults…..or do you wish us to imagine he is paid for changing light bulbs in corridors ?

      • Chris Barron says:

        “It is just one big money making scam, which Mr Baron is enjoying being part of.”

        Just random muckslinging ?

        ….I’m just a regular guy, who has to pay electricity bills like everyone else. i don’t like it, but if I want electricity I have to pay, or make it myself. (not blessed here to make my own, but I would if I could)

        I’m not happy that my government is a puppet to the Russian coal industry….is that really a bad thing ? Sod off !

        • A C Osborn says:

          Bullshit, you are part of the Wind Industry.
          What Government is a puppet of the Russian Coal Industry?

        • Chris Barron says:

          Didn’t you read me properly ?
          The UK government, my own government, buys 50% of it’s coal from Russia. It is positioning itself as far away from other sources and guardfencing itself from TTIP in the process.

          Due to the contract with Russia, should Putin decide he needs to put the price up we will have to pay his price….or pay him compensation to get out of the contract

          You do understand that very little happens without a contract in business don’t you ?

        • Hugh K says:

          Look, I don’t care if you if you want to live in a windmill. Just stop demanding that taxpayers subsidize your scam and we’ll be OK.
          And don’t flatter yourself…you are far from a “regular guy”.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Just stop demanding that taxpayers subsidize your scam and we’ll be OK.”

          My scam ?

          You don’t have any maths to back up your claim….and don’t seem to have found fault in mine.

          When i claimed to be a regular guy I obviously didn’t mean regular by the standards of you or the other people who seem to be mortally committed to hating anything which can produce profitable electricity without any fossil’s being harmed

        • Hugh K says:

          Why do you hate birds?

        • Chris Barron says:

          Why do i hate birds ?
          Is that all you have taken from this thus far ?

    • annieoakley says:

      Makes GE a muti-national company with all of its manufacturing in China, much richer. And they enjoy a protected tax status for donating heavily to the Demorat Party.

      • Chris Barron says:

        The fact that the worlds fastest expanding wind power market is also in China obviously must have nothing to do with the fact that they chose to put manufacturing there.

        • Streetcred says:

          Yer, it’s got nothing to do with all of the rare earth mines in China and a blind eye to the significant toxic pollution associated with wind turbine manufacture. So long as the pollution is not ‘at home’.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Do you seriously expect them to move Chinese soil to the you to mine it there ? The thing about mining is you go where the product is, it won’t come to you

          You’ve been using rare earth materials, specifically neodymium magnets, for years without even knowing it…..don’rt feel bad, we’ve all enjoyed China’s problem together, one way or another

        • nielszoo says:

          Right, that’s why they’re building coal fired plants at the rate of one a week… so that they can power their factories to build wind generators to sell to countries stupid enough to mandate them. Thereby raking in subsidies forced out of foreign taxpayers. BTW, they’re doing the same thing with solar PV. The mines and factories that build all of these things are powered by coal and oil ’cause they are NOT reliable enough to build themselves. You CANNOT run a foundry on wind or solar. You sure as hell are NEVER going to make aluminum with them either. They are niche technologies and the ONLY reason they are being used in 95% of their applications is due to government force, mandate or extortion… period.

          How much energy does one of those generate without wind? Where is the part of your ROI formula that covers dead time and the consistently inflated working lifetime?

  13. Anything is possible says:

    Large area of high pressure now forming over the UK. Wind production down to 0.45GW. (0.96% of total demand.)

    Who has to pick up the slack, Chris?

    • A C Osborn says:

      He doesn’t care who has to pick it up, they are making their “profit”, that is all they care about.

      • AndyG55 says:

        The real stupidity is that they get paid even when not producing anything.

        Remove all the ridiculous rules and massive feed-in tariffs, and introduce a contract to supply a certain amount at a certain time like every other energy supplier, with the same sort of fines for non-supply. Remove the mandates that force wholesalers to take wind energy at inflated prices.

        Level playing field and wind turdines would never exist.

        They can never, and will never, be able to provide base load electricity.

        They are just a niche TOY getting in the way or a solid reliable electricity system, and making it more expensive for everyone.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Lots of coal mines are being paid to produce unprofitable coal. Those subsidies will end in 2018 and those mines will have to close.

      • Chris Barron says:

        Right i don’t care…I don’t care if it comes from coal, gas or other renewable…preferably not nuclear.

        Here in Scotland when the SNP came into power they turned off the only nuclear station. Last year renewables produced over 40% of demand

        Right now, wind is producing 3% of the UK demand and it’s rising. two weeks ago it was over 18% for the whole of the UK.. (close to 50% for Scotland)

        Oh. and Scotland is constantly exporting to the north of England, and has done for years. If there’s one thing we have lots of it’s energy resources.

  14. AndyG55 says:

    Its morning here, still dark because I have to go to work early.
    It is totally still outside, as it was last night.

    A challenge to the robber Barron.. whenever there is neither sun or enough wind to drive wind turdines, you turn of the main coal fired electricity supply to you house.

    This is what you would wish on others. Trial it for a month.. I dare you. !!

  15. Anything is possible says:

    13,000 tons of toxic waste to be dumped into the North Sea, courtesy of offshore wind farms :

    Outrage from “environmentalists” is conspicuous by its absence.

    • Chris Barron says:

      Maybe they think that aluminium….the so called ‘toxic waste’ which the childish hyperbole addict of an author referred to, is, well…it’s aluminium

      If the EPA aren’t bothered about CCW, why worry about aluminium ?
      “Coal combustion wastes contain a variety of toxic compounds such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, mercury, selenium, thorium and uranium, as well as dioxins and poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Despite the presence of these toxic compounds, this waste has not been regulated by the EPA as hazardous waste and has often been kept in large impoundments near coal-fired power plants without sufficient containment and in some cases at sites with a high risk of flooding “

      • Gail Combs says:

        More disinformation and misdirection again Chris?

        I am in North Carolina where there is a big stink going on about coal ash. Being a chemist, I looked up the analysis:

        Please note most of these chemicals are found naturally in soils and subsoils. Heck that is how they got into the coal in the first place!

        Ash samples were mainly composed of Si (20–27% w/w), Al (10–14% w/w), Fe (4–6% w/w), and Ca (4–6% w/w). Concentrations of selected trace elements ranged from 8 to 1480 mg kg–1, with the following general trend: Sr > Mn ≈ Zn ≈ Cu ≈ Cr > As ≈ Pb > Se ≈ U.

        What the symbols mean anda quicky on each element.

        Strontium (/ˈstrɒntiəm/ STRON-tee-əm) is a chemical element with symbol Sr and atomic number 38. An alkaline earth metal, strontium is a soft silver-white or yellowish metallic element that is highly reactive chemically. The metal turns yellow when it is exposed to air. Strontium has physical and chemical properties similar to those of its two neighbors calcium and barium. It occurs naturally in the minerals celestine, putnisite and strontianite. While natural strontium is stable, the synthetic 90Sr isotope is present in radioactive fallout and has a half-life of 28.90 years.

        Both strontium and strontianite are named after Strontian, a village in Scotland near which the mineral was discovered in 1790 by Adair Crawford and William Cruickshank. The production of sugar from sugar beet was in the 19th century its largest application (see strontian process). Strontium compounds are today mostly used for the production of cathode ray tubes for televisions. The displacement of cathode ray tubes by other display methods in television sets is changing strontium’s overall consumption.

        Manganese is a chemical element with symbol Mn and atomic number 25. It is not found as a free element in nature; it is often found in combination with iron, and in many minerals. Manganese is a metal with important industrial metal alloy uses, particularly in stainless steels.

        Historically, manganese is named for various black minerals (such as pyrolusite) from the same region of Magnesia in Greece which gave names to similar-sounding magnesium, Mg, and magnetite, an ore of the element iron, Fe. By the mid-18th century, Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele had used pyrolusite to produce chlorine. Scheele and others were aware that pyrolusite (now known to be manganese dioxide) contained a new element, but they were not able to isolate it. Johan Gottlieb Gahn was the first to isolate an impure sample of manganese metal in 1774, by reducing the dioxide with carbon.

        Manganese phosphating is used as a treatment for rust and corrosion prevention on steel. Depending on their oxidation state, manganese ions have various colors and are used industrially as pigments. The permanganates of alkali and alkaline earth metals are powerful oxidizers.

        Zinc, in commerce also spelter, is a chemical element with symbol Zn and atomic number 30. It is the first element of group 12 of the periodic table. In some respects zinc is chemically similar to magnesium: its ion is of similar size and its only common oxidation state is +2. Zinc is the 24th most abundant element in Earth’s crust and has five stable isotopes. The most common zinc ore is sphalerite (zinc blende), a zinc sulfide mineral. The largest mineable amounts are found in Australia, Asia, and the United States. Zinc production includes froth flotation of the ore, roasting, and final extraction using electricity (electrowinning).

        Brass, which is an alloy of copper and zinc, has been used since at least the 10th century BC in Judea[2] and by the 7th century BC in Ancient Greece.[3] Zinc metal was not produced on a large scale until the 12th century in India and was unknown to Europe until the end of the 16th century. The mines of Rajasthan have given definite evidence of zinc production going back to 6th century BC.[4] To date, the oldest evidence of pure zinc comes from Zawar, in Rajasthan, as early as the 9th century AD when a distillation process was employed to make pure zinc.[5] Alchemists burned zinc in air to form what they called “philosopher’s wool” or “white snow”.

        Copper is a chemical element with symbol Cu (from Latin: cuprum) and atomic number 29. It is a ductile metal with very high thermal and electrical conductivity. Pure copper is soft and malleable; a freshly exposed surface has a reddish-orange color. It is used as a conductor of heat and electricity, a building material, and a constituent of various metal alloys.

        The metal and its alloys have been used for thousands of years. In the Roman era, copper was principally mined on Cyprus, hence the origin of the name of the metal as сyprium (metal of Cyprus), later shortened to сuprum. Its compounds are commonly encountered as copper(II) salts, which often impart blue or green colors to minerals such as azurite and turquoise and have been widely used historically as pigments. Architectural structures built with copper corrode to give green verdigris (or patina). Decorative art prominently features copper, both by itself and as part of pigments.

        Copper is essential to all living organisms as a trace dietary mineral because it is a key constituent of the respiratory enzyme complex cytochrome c oxidase. In molluscs and crustacea copper is a constituent of the blood pigment hemocyanin, which is replaced by the iron-complexed hemoglobin in fish and other vertebrates

        Chromium is a chemical element with symbol Cr and atomic number 24. It is the first element in Group 6. It is a steely-gray, lustrous, hard and brittle metal[3] which takes a high polish, resists tarnishing, and has a high melting point. The name of the element is derived from the Greek word χρῶμα, chrōma, meaning color,[4] because many of its compounds are intensely colored.

        Chromium oxide was used by the Chinese in the Qin dynasty over 2,000 years ago to coat metal weapons found with the Terracotta Army. Chromium was discovered as an element after it came to the attention of the Western world in the red crystalline mineral crocoite (lead(II) chromate), discovered in 1761 and initially used as a pigment. Louis Nicolas Vauquelin first isolated chromium metal from this mineral in 1797. Since Vauquelin’s first production of metallic chromium, small amounts of native (free) chromium metal have been discovered in rare minerals, but these are not used commercially. Instead, nearly all chromium is commercially extracted from the single commercially viable ore chromite, which is iron chromium oxide (FeCr2O4). Chromite is also now the chief source of chromium for chromium pigments.

        Arsenic is a chemical element with symbol As and atomic number 33. Arsenic occurs in many minerals, usually in conjunction with sulfur and metals, and also as a pure elemental crystal. Arsenic is a metalloid. It can exist in various allotropes, although only the gray form has important use in industry.

        The main use of metallic arsenic is for strengthening alloys of copper and especially lead (for example, in car batteries). Arsenic is a common n-type dopant in semiconductor electronic devices, and the optoelectronic compound gallium arsenide is the most common semiconductor in use after doped silicon. Arsenic and its compounds, especially the trioxide, are used in the production of pesticides, treated wood products, herbicides, and insecticides. These applications are declining, however.[6]

        A few species of bacteria are able to use arsenic compounds as respiratory metabolites. Experimentally, tiny quantities of arsenic are an essential dietary element in the rat, hamster, goat, chicken, and presumably many other species, including humans.

        Lead (/lɛd/) is a chemical element in the carbon group with symbol Pb (from Latin: plumbum) and atomic number 82. Lead is a soft, malleable and heavy post-transition metal. Metallic lead has a bluish-white color after being freshly cut, but it soon tarnishes to a dull grayish color when exposed to air. Lead has a shiny chrome-silver luster when it is melted into a liquid. It is also the heaviest non-radioactive element.

        Lead is used in building construction, lead-acid batteries, bullets and shot, weights, as part of solders, pewters, fusible alloys, and as a radiation shield. Lead has the highest atomic number of all of the stable elements, although the next higher element, bismuth, has one isotope with a half-life that is so long (over one billion times the estimated age of the universe) that it can be considered stable. Lead’s four stable isotopes have 82 protons, a magic number in the nuclear shell model of atomic nuclei. The isotope lead-208 also has 126 neutrons, another magic number, and is hence double magic, a property that grants it enhanced stability: lead-208 is the heaviest known stable isotope.

        If ingested, lead is poisonous to animals and humans, damaging the nervous system and causing brain disorders. Excessive lead also causes blood disorders in mammals. Lead is a neurotoxin that accumulates both in soft tissues and the bones.

        Selenium is a chemical element with symbol Se and atomic number 34. It is a nonmetal with properties that are intermediate between those of its periodic table column-adjacent chalcogen elements sulfur and tellurium. It rarely occurs in its elemental state in nature, or as pure ore compounds. Selenium (Greek σελήνη selene meaning “Moon”) was discovered in 1817 by Jöns Jacob Berzelius, who noted the similarity of the new element to the previously known tellurium (named for the Earth).

        Selenium is found impurely in metal sulfide ores, copper where it partially replaces the sulfur. Commercially, selenium is produced as a byproduct in the refining of these ores, most often during production. Minerals that are pure selenide or selenate compounds are known, but are rare. The chief commercial uses for selenium today are in glassmaking and in pigments. Selenium is a semiconductor and is used in photocells. Uses in electronics, once important, have been mostly supplanted by silicon semiconductor devices. Selenium continues to be used in a few types of DC power surge protectors and one type of fluorescent quantum dot.

        Selenium salts are toxic in large amounts, but trace amounts are necessary for cellular function in many organisms, including all animals, and is an ingredient in many multi-vitamins and other dietary supplements, including infant formula. Selenium is a component of the antioxidant enzymes glutathione peroxidase and thioredoxin reductase (which indirectly reduce certain oxidized molecules in animals and some plants). It is also found in three deiodinase enzymes, which convert one thyroid hormone to another. Selenium requirements in plants differ by species, with some plants requiring relatively large amounts, and others apparently requiring none

        Uranium is a chemical element with symbol U and atomic number 92. It is a silvery-white metal in the actinide series of the periodic table. A uranium atom has 92 protons and 92 electrons, of which 6 are valence electrons. Uranium is weakly radioactive because all its isotopes are unstable (with half-lives of the 6 naturally known isotopes, uranium-233 to uranium-238, varying between 69 years and 4.5 billion years). The most common isotopes of uranium are uranium-238 (which has 146 neutrons and accounts for almost 99.3% of the uranium found in nature) and uranium-235 (which has 143 neutrons, accounting for 0.7% of the element found naturally). Uranium has the second highest atomic weight of the primordially occurring elements, lighter only than plutonium.[4] Its density is about 70% higher than that of lead, but slightly lower than that of gold or tungsten. It occurs naturally in low concentrations of a few parts per million in soil, rock and water, and is commercially extracted from uranium-bearing minerals such as uraninite.

  16. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Wind turbines kill on average about 200 birds per year and 400 bats per year. There are about 200,000 turbines in existence. Do the arithmetic. Solar thermal is similar, although too new to get averaged data (Ivanpah may kill up to 28,000 birds per year).

    Solar panels kill very few birds or bats.

    So the question is why build massively destructive wind farms when you could build nearly harmless solar panels instead?

    Greens never think of harm minimisation: if it is green is it good no matter how many birds, bats and people they destroy. Bloody hypocrites.

    • Chris Barron says:

      Wind is preferred because turbines can produce electricity at night as well as day.
      In general, (not always though) for every $ or joule invested, wind is superior to solar

      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        Chris – the intermittency problem is same for solar PV and wind, just on different timescales. In all intents and purposes they are equal in this issue, therefore my argument stands.

        You either back up the intermittency with gas (or etc) or you put in storage. If you put in storage the combined system has a negative EROI.

        So it remains: since wind massacres wildlife, and solar PV doesn’t, yet both require similar back up, why do wind at all? It is a moral outrage.

        • Chris Barron says:

          ..or don’t use storage…wasteful but as your source shows, it has a good EROI then

        • Chris Barron says:

          “So by your argument we should ban the environmentally catastrophic wind turbines and use coal instead.”

          There speaks a person who doesn’t think you can use both….at the same time….just like we do now ?

          I’ve never made an argument for wind turbines based on any environmental credentials. But i believe in being fair and if you’re going to call out wind turbines for their environmental issues then do the same for your preferred option too.

          I have had the term ‘environmentalist’ shoved upon me but, as I say so many times for people who don’t know how to read…I don’t worry about CO2 and i love burning tanks of petrol in my motorbike and diesel in my car……So I guetss we’re the same there.

          Perhaps where we differ is that I haven’t jumped on a bandwagon, I’ve looked at real world figures,, and I live in a country which makes huge amounts of affordable renewable electricity…blame me for that if you like

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          Please list the real environmental hazards of coal. Be warned I know the data quite well. As I mentioned 2XCO2 is under 1 C/doubling on the empirical calcs (ie not using climate models). Therefore you cannot use CAGW in your argument.

          The point of this is if cheap coal is not very harmful, which it isn’t, and wind farms are much more harmful, which they are, then you should shut down the wind farms.

      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        In general, (not always though) for every $ or joule invested, wind is superior to solar

        And coal is economically superior to wind. So by your argument we should ban the environmentally catastrophic wind turbines and use coal instead.

        You can’t have it both ways. You either go on economics whereupon coal wins, or you go on “morality” whereas solar PV wins. If you try mixing the two together you just show your hypocrisy.

        I should add that I am a R&D scientist myself, and my reading of the data is that ECS is about 0.7 C/doubling. Which is harmless.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “I should add that I am a R&D scientist myself, and my reading of the data is that ECS is about 0.7 C/doubling. Which is harmless.”

          Glad you worked that out Bruce…I don’t need to work anything out to know that the planet isn’t being threatened by AGW. It was always an obvious lie

      • Ben Vorlich says:

        Chris Barron
        I’ve seen uou mention contracts several times in your posts but I’ve seen no mention in any of your posts of contract with God/Allah/Jehovah/Mother Nature/ The Grren Man that wind will blow 24/7/365 at the optimum speed for wind turbines.

        The UK has spent £1 Billion ($1.4 Billion) in creating a transmission line from Beauly to Denny specifically for transporting wind generated electricity from Northern Scotland, which is sparsly populated to the Central belt where what’s left of the industry is. Now if you could shouw me a contract specifying 24/7/365 optimum wind for Northern Scotland it would give me confidence that this wasn’t a waste of my share of the £1 billion.

        If not could you recommend to the UK government that they just build the backup, but not STOR backup, in future?

        Many thanks.

      • nielszoo says:

        No, wind might produce electricity at night. No one knows when it will work… it’s up to the weather (or climate depending on what the definitions are this week.) Coal, oil, gas, nuclear and (mostly) hydro will produce energy any time we need it, on demand and we generate what we need. Wind produces… well… sometimes and sometimes not. If its really windy at 3am… absolute wasted generation capacity. Useless, do you count that in your data as well? The only known with them is that when they are turning… they kill birds. This is not a difficult concept. Try selling a table top or floor fan that has no guards whatsoever that comes on and off on a whim. Now leave a 4 year old kid in a room with one. I guarantee that the parent who did that would be in jail and the manufacturer of that unguarded fan would be fined and sued. Wind generator, let’s force taxpayers to cover all the flaws and exempt the owners from the law and force power companies to use them all in the name of the Progressive idiocy of the CAGW scam.


  17. visionar2013 says:

    We can stop industrializing Nature to save Nature: For the cost of the California High Speed Rail and the Delta Tunnel project and Renewable Energy investments; CA can have unlimited emission free energy and unlimited desalinated water & fast commuter rail. We can stop the industrializing nature with Wind & Solar to save nature using inefficient intermittent energy, which drives high costs of energy and desalination.
    • California is chasing the tail of inefficient energy and draconian regulations with minimal impact on climate.
    o Energy Return on Investment
    o Green Energy is industrializing nature due to its being 1/5,000,000 less energy dense than nuclear
    o Google after $2+ Billion invested in renewables realizes green energy won’t save the planet.
    o Germany’s Green Energy Failure; they shut down CO2 clean nuclear plants and are forced to build Coal powered plants

    • Low Cost 4th Generation Green Nuclear: The United States is about to be left in the dust of China who is walking away with our Oak Ridge National Labs design for the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR). The anti-nuclear lobby has blinded policy makers on the importance of Green Nuclear.
    o Scientists Open letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear:
    o Nuclear has the lowest death rate of all energy sources
    o Green Energy’s waste stream of Rare Earth Elements (REE) tosses away enough of the super fuel Thorium yearly that can power the entire planet using Molten Salt Reactors (MSR). Imagine powering the World by recycling Green Waste?
    o China is on a $1+ Billion crash program developing our ORNL MSR design in ten years.
    o We can stop building low density energy Wind Farms and build a robust distributed Grid using MSRs, how about municipal power costing $.04 kwh own by your city.
    o We can assembly Power and Water generation barges in the our ports to be shipped to coastal cities and then globally to power and cure the thirst of 1/3 of the world’s population and supply clean energy without emissions and have a low impact on nature.

    • Chris Barron says:

      I really do hope it works
      Thorium experiments began in the mid 1950’s…it still has some catching up to do.

      But i wouldn’t rush to race the Chinese…let them iron out the inevitable bugs first….let them recover from a toxic fluoride leak and show what measures you need to protect yourself first.

      3 mile island was super safe at the start too….

      You can run into a disaster, walk into it , or not tempt fate….regardless of that though it’s always better to let someone else get the glory…. and find the problems

    • Gail Combs says:

      The only reason the USA stopped Thorium research is because of politics.

      … Following the development of the first nuclear bomb at the close of WWII, physicists were applying their knowledge of radioactivity to civilian use, chiefly for the production of electricity. Since the nuclear bombs used Uranium and Plutonium as their explosive fuel, scientists naturally experimented with these same materials, causing a controlled chain reaction that produced heat that created steam and turned an electric generator.

      Most of this research was done at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. A nuclear physicist named Alvin Weinberg [right] was working at ORNL during the Manhattan Project (which made the first two nuclear bombs), and later became Director of the Laboratory in the early 1950s. He holds the patent for the Light Water reactors like the one’s at Fukushima. He continued to make new discoveries and innovations in the fields of nuclear reactors until he was fired by President Richard Nixon. The reason will make you cringe.

      Weinberg’s experiments with radioactive elements revealed the dangers inherent in Uranium and Plutonium fuels — things like explosions, meltdowns and radioactive contamination — disasters that would be inevitable. Not only do these solid fuels require constant attention by alert and experienced engineers but the waste material is highly radioactive and needs to be stored and attended to by someone for the next 250,000 years!

      Weinberg wasn’t just critical of Uranium fueled reactors, he had discovered an alternative fuel that was safer and more efficient. In fact it was so “safe” that Nixon fired Weinberg and cut all funding for liquid fuel research lest it deter the chosen path of Uranium. What is this fuel you have likely never heard of before? It’s Thorium….

      • Chris Barron says:

        Germany built a solid bed thorium reactor, it’s turned out to show that the calculations aren’t producing the expect amounts of electricity….to the point they shut it down within 2 years…for 90% of the time it was run on uranium.

        When will we see viable thorium I wonder ? In my lifetime ?

  18. Windsong says:

    @ Chris Barron: By chance are you related to, or know, a woman in the US named Hope?

    • Chris Barron says:

      You love the ‘in jokes’ don’t you.

      The number of required calculators has reached 5…I should look at placing a bulk order I reckon

    • rah says:

      No. Chris may be as persistent as Hope but his arguments are better formulated and come from someone that has obviously learned his subject well enough to miss lead. Hope was hopeless.

      • Chris Barron says:

        40% of electricity in Scotland comes from renewables. It didn’t cost us enough to bankrupt us and we export electricity continuously…and all this since turning off our nuclear power station….

        Facts are not misleading to anyone except those who believed the wrong thing to start off with

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          I wouldn’t want to be a bird or bat in Scotland. Are there any left or have they been all turned into bloody gobbets?

          Environmentalists are complete hypocrites.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Well why don’t you do some research and find out ?

          Does the fact that gamekeepers feel the need to poison raptors tell you anything about the abundance of birds of prey we still have here ?

        • Ben Vorlich says:

          Chris Barron
          The UK government spent £1 Billion ($1.4 Billion) on the Beauly – Denny transmission line. See below why this was a waste of money and would have been better spent on gas powered generation close to where it is needed.

          Despite your claim 40% of electrical power in Scotland does not come from renewables for most of the time. That is a distortion of the truth by Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon is facing reality and having kittens.

          As of now for the UK in total Wind is 0.29 GW (0.75%) and hydro is 0.42GW (1.09%) and biomass 0.71GW (1.84%) as it is night in the UK Solar is 0%. Demand is at about 75% of normal peak. This is more like the normal situation, where wind rarely exceeds 5GW. The 40% you are quoting is for a particularly windy Sunday afternoon.

          You can down load a couple of years data from here. Try comparing the power from wind with the combined supply to the UK from the French and Dutch interconnectors.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          I have not talked about birds of prey: the numbers I quoted above are birds and bats of all species. There is a lot of data illustrating the problem already, which is remarkable since wind is a protected species by the warmists and governments.

          The typical fine that oil companies receive for bird deaths is about $5,000 a head, if you do some research yourself. Since wind turbines are killing something like 600 a year of combined flying creatures the fair result would be to fine wind operators the same way that oil companies are fined.

          So each wind turbine should be up for something like $300,000 a year in fines, depending on the siting.

          This is illustrative of the double standards and hypocrisy.

        • Andy DC says:

          Scotland is one of the windiest places on earth with a relatively small population. What about the rest of the world, that is far more populated and not nearly so windy?

  19. gator69 says:

    A C Osborn says:
    March 17, 2015 at 6:04 pm
    It is no good wriggling, the accepted efficiency is 38%, not 0.27%, you lied to suit your purpose.

    Chris may have a calculator, but he certainly doesn’t know how to use it, or he is a liar?

    Which is it Chris? Incompetence with a simple hand held device, or dishonesty?

    • Chris Barron says:

      It’s nothing of the sort. A real analysis of how much energy is stored in 1 gm of uranium compared to how many units of electricity reach the grid.


      Don’t trust me, I know you won’t , work it out for yourself.

      How many tons of coal are required to produce 1MWh.
      Now compare that to how little uranium is required

      now explain why uranium and coal only have roughly the same efficiency if you believe that nuclear really is 38% efficient ….and yet a ton of uranium costs so much more than a ton of coal.

      The energy density of uranium is so damn high that using it to boil water is about as bad a conversion system as you can get

      The current price of uranium is just under $40 per lb, coal is about $40 per short ton

      Uranium is only just viable due to the costs associated with modern extraction methods…won’t be long before nuclear stations start asking for subsidies…

      • gator69 says:

        Liar. Got it. Thanks.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Which bit is the lie ?
          You’ve got no figures of your own….show no working out….make no point to support your statement and yet still, you believe you’re right.

          At least the people who read the thread see you do nothing but duck and dive.

          Come on Gator, where do YOU get the ridiculously insulting to science figure of 38% efficiency for a nuclear station from ?

          According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, “A single uranium fuel pellet the size of a fingertip contains as much energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal or 149 gallons of oil.” This pellet will only weigh approximately 7 grams.

          No lie there.

          Can you possibly use that big brain of yours to suggest what type of energy transfer system (boiler ?) can be used to make sure that the very rapid and enormous release of energy from uranium can be controlled so that it can heat over a thousand times as much water as an equivalent output coal power station would manage, in order to achieve the same efficiency ?

          The physical limit of heat transfer for water is well below what is required to achieve even 3 or 4% efficiency. Again. No lie, just science

        • gator69 says:

          What happened to wind liar. Changing the subject again?

          My offer stands, write me a check for 800,000 pounds and I’ll gladly join your side.

  20. Gail Combs says:

    World Nuclear Association
    List of accidents:

    Chernobyl Accident

    Chernobyl Accident 1986
    (Updated December 2014)

    The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.
    The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind – some 5200 PBq (I-131 eq).
    Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning.
    UNSCEAR says that apart from increased thyroid cancers, “there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident.”
    Resettlement of areas from which people were relocated is ongoing. In 2011 Chernobyl was officially declared a tourist attraction.

    The April 1986 disaster at the Chernobyla nuclear power plant in Ukraine was the product of a flawed Soviet reactor design coupled with serious mistakes made by the plant operatorsb. It was a direct consequence of Cold War isolation and the resulting lack of any safety culture….

    On 25 April, prior to a routine shutdown, the reactor crew at Chernobyl 4 began preparing for a test to determine how long turbines would spin and supply power to the main circulating pumps following a loss of main electrical power supply….

    <b.Fukushima Accident

    (Updated February 2015)

    Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely melted in the first three days.
    The accident was rated 7 on the INES scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).
    Four reactors were written off due to damage in the accident – 2719 MWe net.
    After two weeks, the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with water addition and by July they were being cooled with recycled water from the new treatment plant. Official ‘cold shutdown condition’ was announced in mid-December.
    Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013.
    There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people had to be evacuated from their homes to ensure this. Government nervousness delays their return.
    Official figures show that there have been well over 1000 deaths from maintaining the evacuation, in contrast to little risk from radiation if early return had been allowed.

    The Great East Japan Earthquake of magnitude 9.0 at 2.46 pm on Friday 11 March 2011 did considerable damage in the region, and the large tsunami it created caused very much more….

    The reactors proved robust seismically, but vulnerable to the tsunami. Power, from grid or backup generators, was available to run the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system cooling pumps at eight of the eleven units, and despite some problems they achieved ‘cold shutdown’ within about four days. The other three, at Fukushima Daiichi, lost power at 3.42 pm, almost an hour after the quake, when the entire site was flooded by the 15-metre tsunami. This disabled 12 of 13 back-up generators on site and also the heat exchangers for dumping reactor waste heat and decay heat to the sea. The three units lost the ability to maintain proper reactor cooling and water circulation functions. Electrical switchgear was also disabled. Thereafter, many weeks of focused work centred on restoring heat removal from the reactors and coping with overheated spent fuel ponds. This was undertaken by hundreds of Tepco employees as well as some contractors, supported by firefighting and military personnel. Some of the Tepco staff had lost homes, and even families, in the tsunami, and were initially living in temporary accommodation under great difficulties and privation, with some personal risk…..

    <b.Tokaimura Criticality Accident

    updated October 2013

    In 1999 three workers received high doses of radiation in a small Japanese plant preparing fuel for an experimental reactor.
    The accident was caused by bringing together too much uranium enriched to a relatively high level, causing a “criticality” (a limited uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction), which continued intermittently for 20 hours.
    A total of 119 people received a radiation dose over 1 mSv from the accident, but only the three operators’ doses were above permissible limits. Two of the doses proved fatal.
    The cause of the accident was “human error and serious breaches of safety principles”, according to IAEA.

    Safety in the nuclear fuel cycle has always been focused on reactor operations, where a huge amount of energy is released continuously in a small volume of material, and where there are substantial amounts of radioactive materials which would be very hazardous if released to the biosphere. A secondary focus is then the high-level wastes from the reactor, which comprise all the potentially hazardous materials from the reactor core.

    Other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle have much less potential for widespread harm to people or the environment. They are correspondingly less regulated in some countries, such as Japan.
    The Tokaimura plant

    The 1999 Tokai-mura accident was in a very small fuel preparation plant operated by Japan Nuclear Fuel Conversion Co. (JCO), a subsidiary of Sumitomo Metal Mining Co. It was not part of the electricity production fuel cycle, nor was it a routine manufacturing operation where operators might be assumed to know their jobs reasonably well.

    The particular JCO plant at Tokai was commissioned in 1988 and processed up to 3 tonnes per year of uranium enriched up to 20% U-235, a much higher than for ordinary power reactors. The plant supplied various specialised research and experimental reactors. It uses a wet process….

    Three Mile Island accident

    (March 2001, minor update Jan 2012)

    In 1979 at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in USA a cooling malfunction caused part of the core to melt in the # 2 reactor. The TMI-2 reactor was destroyed.
    Some radioactive gas was released a couple of days after the accident, but not enough to cause any dose above background levels to local residents.
    There were no injuries or adverse health effects from the Three Mile Island accident.

    The Three Mile Island power station is near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in USA. It had two pressurized water reactors. One PWR was of 800 MWe (775 MWe net) and entered service in 1974. It remains one of the best-performing units in USA. Unit 2 was of 906 MWe (880 MWe net) and almost brand new.

    The accident to unit 2 happened at 4 am on 28 March 1979 when the reactor was operating at 97% power. It involved a relatively minor malfunction in the secondary cooling circuit which caused the temperature in the primary coolant to rise. This in turn caused the reactor to shut down automatically. Shut down took about one second. At this point a relief valve failed to close, but instrumentation did not reveal the fact, and so much of the primary coolant drained away that the residual decay heat in the reactor core was not removed. The core suffered severe damage as a result.

    The operators were unable to diagnose or respond properly to the unplanned automatic shutdown of the reactor. Deficient control room instrumentation and inadequate emergency response training proved to be root causes of the accident…..

    These are all that are listed:

  21. EternalOptimist says:

    If Barron agrees to post only when the wind is blowing, I will agree not to call him a hypocrite

  22. Streetcred says:

    Wind Power Slumps To Under 1% Of UK Electricity Generation

    UK electricity demand hit its highest level this winter on Monday – while wind turbines generated their lowest output, official figures show.

    Cold weather saw UK demand hit 52.54 gigawatts (GW) between 5pm and 5.30pm, according to National Grid.

    At the same time, low wind speeds meant the UK’s wind turbines were producing just 573 megawatts of power, enough to meet only one per cent of demand – the lowest of any peak period this winter, Telegraph analysis of official data shows.

  23. Streetcred says:

    Professor Issues Damning Indictment Of Renewables

    ENVIRONMENTAL advantages of renewable energy are a myth – fusion energy is the way forward says Anthony Trewavas

    Renewables use sun, water, wind; energy sources that won’t run out. Non-renewables come from things like gas, coal and uranium that one day will. But unless electricity and motorised transport are abandoned altogether, all “renewables” need huge areas of land or sea and require raw materials that are drilled, transported, mined, bulldozed and these will run out. Wind turbine towers are constructed from steel manufactured in a blast furnace from mined iron ore and modified coal (coke). Turbine blades are composed of oil-derived resins and glass fibre. The nacelle encloses a magnet containing about one third of a tonne of the rare earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium. Large neodymium magnets also help propel electric cars.

    • Chris Barron says:

      As discussed last week….the author, Professor A J Trewavas, has lost legal battles in court for his libels….and is a professor of plant biology.

      His paper “Signal Perception and Transduction: The Origin of the Phenotype.”
      was excellent by all accounts but his engineering qualifications are unusually absent

      • Streetcred says:

        LOL and you endorse WWF ‘research’ ? When you have no arguments, then attack the man. You are morally bankrupt.

        • Chris Barron says:

          When have I ever ‘endorsed’ WWF credentials… I might have mentioned the WWF…does than mean i endorse them ?

          I used a broken door handle today. Did I endorse it ?

    • Chris Barron says:

      With the current official estimate to decommission UK nuclear power stations (something which MUST be done soon) running at £80 billion…why does the graph show decommissioning costs of nuclear to be nothing of note.

      “”Half a billion dollars per reactor for decommissioning is no doubt vastly underestimated,” said Mycle Schneider, a Paris-based nuclear energy consultant.”
      Source Reuters

      The French Brennilis 70MW reactor was shut down permanently in 1985. The cost of decommissioning is currently estimated to be 482 million euros, much greater than initial estimates of 80 million

      This additional cost, when factored into the equation, makes nuclear more expensive than wind

      • gator69 says:

        The decommissioning cost is there, squint your beady little eyes and look again. You keep quoting wind salesman figures, but make a lousy salesman, probably because a good salesman tells the truth at least once per day.e will start to go up to market value, so act Now!

        My offer still stands, just 800,000 pounds buys me, but soon it will be closer to the “market value” of 2,000,000! 😆

        No money where your fat lying mouth is? Thanks for showing your true colors Chris.

      • Chris Barron says:

        Like I said Gator, (refer to the post you humoured)
        “why does the graph show decommissioning costs of nuclear to be nothing of note”

        In English we often use the mechanism of understatement to humour someone or something
        I acknowledged it is there when I said the graph made it out to be nothing of note.

        Yet all the experts now say it is actually something of a significant problem (though they were French experts, not often given to understating anything)

        I think you have to say I have a fat lying mouth because it’s now clear to everyone reading this that you have no willing to substantiate anything you say with any form of verifiable calculation.

        But do carry on, it’s about all you can do when you’ve invested so much in your own illusion

        (and feel free to be smart and say something about illusions and me and all that obviously clutching at straw stuff you usually say)

        For you I have ordered a special solar powered calculator. no biggie pal 😉

        • gator69 says:

          So you are unwilling to pay the cost? Big F’ing surprise! Just like all snake oil salesmen, you refuse to buy what you sell.

          What’s wrong fraud? 1.77 million pounds per job too much for your big mouth to swallow? 😆

          No, cowards like you prefer to have the government do your dirty work for you, and care not who dies.

          You are filth.

        • gator69 says:

          Fuel poverty affects almost a fifth[1] of London households and contributed to 2,500 excess winter deaths last year[2] – and the problem is getting worse, a London Assembly report warns today.

          Chris has no problem murdering his neighbors, so why worry about birds?

        • gator69 says:

          In addition to concerns already raised by the Wilderness Foundation UK with regard to the spread of onshore wind farms across the British Isles, the government’s former Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir David King has now spoken out about his concerns that a great relianace on wind power and associated rising electricity costs could lead to almost half a million British people being forced into fuel poverty.

          Chris hates his neighbors, but loves wind turbine salesmen.

        • gator69 says:

          From Matt Ridley’s new cover story in The Spectator, “The Winds of Change”:

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

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

          If wind power was going to work, it would have done so by now. The people of Britain see this quite clearly, though politicians are often willfully deaf.”

          See more at:

          Chris wants to go on a killing spree, because he dreams of being right. What a POS.

        • gator69 says:

          How many deaths is enough Chris? We aren’t talking birds killer.

          More than three million older people are worried about staying warm indoors this winter – with six million anxious about rising fuel bills, says Age UK.
          The charity said its research shows many are unaware of the potentially fatal consequences of living in poorly heated housing.
          Cold temperatures endanger the elderly by increasing the risk of flu, chest infections and other respiratory problems, and their severity.
          Being cold also pushes up blood pressure which may trigger heart attacks and strokes.
          Almost one in four people (22 per cent) taking part in the research did not know that a number of serious health problems are made worse or brought on by the cold.
          This rose to 29 per cent amongst people aged 80 and over.
          Fewer than one in 10 Britons aged 65 and over are aware that strokes can be brought on by the cold in winter, with only 14 per cent recognising that the cold can impact on heart attacks.
          The survey marks the launch of Age UK’s Spread The Warmth winter campaign, which is aimed at cutting the 24,000 excess winter deaths that occur nationally each winter.

          How about your family? Ready to sacrifice them too?

        • Gail Combs says:

          We have not been able to afford having the central heat or A/C on for over two years. (We have an electric heat pump.) Even with it turned completely off the bill for February was still over $300. The last time we had our cental heat on it cost over 1/4 of my husband’s SS + pension.

          I hate to think what people in areas of the USA that do not have a mild climate are looking at in future electric/heating bills.

          Last winter the US Government said there was a ” 14% increase in the average U.S. residential price from last winter.(2012-2013)” for heating.

          The US government average electric bill for my state is a joke, especially since many homes have heat pumps and many are badly insulated trailers. $104/mo ? I do not know of anyone with a bill that low around here. As I said before my mechanics bill was over $700. Of course we all have wells too. (Duke says we can expect a 6.5 percent increase for last year and a 7.5 percent increase this year. Residential gets hit hardest with the other rate increases under 5 percent.)

          Looking at a board discussing electric bills for 2007, most had bills ~$140, while one poor soul had a bill ~$300 so it looks like it varies by town.

        • Chris Barron says:

          The paranoia, the hatred and self loathing which you have is best kept to yourself….don’t fill my space with your ill formed thoughts

          This is me.

          Don’t believe me ? Send a private message and I’ll repost it here to prove it….

          Just a regular guy, well qualified in maths and engineering…..ex mechanic, professional commercial print engineer…

          No idea who your salesman is but I’ll hate you as much as you want me too if you ask for it, I’ve had bigger heads for tea

          Absolutely nothing to hide…unlike the weak willed pseudonym hype addicts found here


        • Chris Barron says:

          Gator “You are filth.”

          Your mind is wasted on you


        • gator69 says:

          My thoughts are not about abusing and murdering my neighbors, like you.

          I just consider the source and smile.

        • Chris Barron says:


          Carry on reading oh way too much into everything …I’ve sat and watched yo misconstrue your own demands into unrelated conclusions

          I never made a single comment on your demands and you decided to then tell me what I’m willing or unwilling to do…without knowing me……lets love the imperfect before they’re gone eh ?
          “So you are unwilling to pay the cost? Big F’ing surprise! Just like all snake oil salesmen, you refuse to buy what you sell.”

        • AndyG55 says:

          What Chris should do is find a house near a wind farm wherethe familiy says they are affected by the infrasonics.

          Then he should offer to live there, connected ONLY to the wind farm, for one year while he pays the rent for the family to live elsewhere.

          Surely this wouldn’t be too much of a test for this worthless cowardly shill?

          I’m sure he has enough subsidy money coming in, but I bet he doesn’t have the balls !!

          Come on Chris.. actions speak way louder tha propaganda word and false assumption driven calculations.

        • gator69 says:

          The hater of humanity barks again.


  24. Streetcred says:

    WWF’s Wind Power Claims

    A couple of months ago, WWF were bragging off that Scottish wind farms had supplied enough electricity in November to supply all Scottish homes.

    I am not quite sure what “Scottish homes” has to do with anything. The wind power is there to supply the whole of the UK, and I am quite sure Scottish householders would not want to pay all of the subsidy for their wind farms, though the English bill payers would be quite happy!

    WWF also misleadingly refer to “households”, without explaining that domestic demand is only about a quarter of total demand, when industry and other users are factored in. This is a trick commonly used by renewable interests, to make it sound as if wind power is producing more than it really is.

    • Gail Combs says:

      And Obama’s EPA is shutting down enough coal power generators to supply all US homes west of the Mississippi.

      (Two can play the game)

    • Chris Barron says:

      I don’t see how if they say enough was produced to power all Scottish households it could possibly mislead anyone to think they mean all electricity consumed. But feel free to explain your confusion ! (you don’t think that Scotland just has homes and no industry do you ?)

  25. Ben Vorlich says:

    Chris Barron

    I posted this further up the thread but I’d you to see it, so in case you missed here it is again.

    The UK government spent £1 Billion ($1.4 Billion) on the Beauly – Denny transmission line. See below why this was a waste of money and would have been better spent on gas powered generation close to where it is needed.

    Despite your claim 40% of electrical power in Scotland does not come from renewables for most of the time. That is a distortion of the truth by Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon is facing reality and having kittens.

    As of now for the UK in total Wind is 0.29 GW (0.75%) and hydro is 0.42GW (1.09%) and biomass 0.71GW (1.84%) as it is night in the UK Solar is 0%. Demand is at about 75% of normal peak. This is more like the normal situation, where wind rarely exceeds 5GW. The 40% you are quoting is for a particularly windy Sunday afternoon.

    You can down load a couple of years data from here. Try comparing the power from wind with the combined supply to the UK from the French and Dutch interconnectors.

    • Chris Barron says:

      First can I thank you for reposting those figures.

      A few weeks ago when i posted them i was told it was all lies (but then one of the people who disputed them then went on to use them for their own purpose, so I guess they weren’t bad after all)

      The majority of the UK’s renewables is located in Scotland, and Scotland’s demand is a small fraction of the UK as a whole. The main concentration of demand is in the south east.

      What you seem to be saying is that 5GW is not enough to meet 40% of Scotland’s demand (or thereabouts), which would imply that the Scottish demand is greater than 12GW. The peak demand for the whole of the UK on the coldest of winter days is usually no more than 60GW, the majority of it needed in the southeast again.

      I’m trying to see what is contestable about the claim that the renewables in Scotland met 40% of Scottish electricity demand in 2012……..can you give some more details and maybe we can find the error, if there actually is one ?

    • Chris Barron says:

      A ballpark figure for Scottish electricity (all demand of electricity, domestic, industrial, transport) was 32TWh for the year 2002 (out of date, but lets see if it is even close before dismissing it

      There are 8760 hours in a year so 32TWh/8760 = 3.65GW of demand, average

      Lets add, say 20% for increases in demand, less savings from things like low energy lightbulbs ( a significant factor)…and …well lets say 5GW of demand then (rounding up)

      40% of 5GW is 2GW…so the question is….can renewables in Scotland provide 2GW, when averaged out over the year ?

      There is now 7.4GW of installed renewables… 2GW, if there’s plenty of wind (and believe me there is a lot) seems like a possible figure

      no hype here by the way…and do feel free to alter and adjust as necessary if I made any oversight

      • Ben Vorlich says:

        What I’m saying is that even in Scotland the wind is not
        1 There all the time
        2 Often below optimum.
        I know this from personnel experience as you might be able to work out from my monicker.

        The data for the entire UK today is only 0.7GW for wind, so even if Scotland has 60% (not likely if you take into account off-shore) of the UK’s installed base that’s 0.4GW for Scotland. Plus 100% of the UK’s Hydro gives a total 0.8GW. The situation has been like that for at least 12 hours. So it doesn’t really matter how much wind generation you install if there’s no wind there’s no power. Even in Scotland there can periods of low rainfall which usually coincide with low wind conditions.

        So by analogy Lewis Hamilton drives an F1 car, a Mercedes Mercedes PU106A engine with energy recovery and producing about 750bhp, but due to track and racing conditions he is unable to use the 750bhp all the time, nor is the energy recovery system able to produce energy all the time.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Of course I understand what you’re saying, but, a few weeks ago when renewables were producing 18% of all UK power the situation is considerably different

          It also goes without saying that unless someone spent their whole life indoors then they know the wind is not constant.

          But, research proves that low wind across the whole of the UK is not a likely situation at times of peak demand, the recorded data proves that in fact peak wind output occurs at peak demand times many times…but of course, when we aren’t having to burn 50% Russian coal at that time, which comes from oligarchs and Malaysian airline attackers…everybody finds it easier to not think about it as much.

      • A C Osborn says:

        3 days of 1GW or less just proves you will say anything to try and prove your point, so the wind is almost not blowing anywhere in the UK.
        Perhpas you would also like to argue your “Financial” case for Wind in this Post.

        YOu see we have yet another bunch of experts on our side.

  26. Streetcred says:

    Emerging Environmental Scandal: “Thousands Of Tons Of Toxic” Wind Park Rubbish To Get Dumped At Sea! – See more at:

    • Chris Barron says:

      The ultimate in hype…it’s aluminium which is being referred to as ‘toxic waste’

      The stuff you cook your food in.

      Be aware that your pots are all toxic if you want to believe the hype!

      • rah says:

        Don’t have an aluminum pot or pan in the house. Not even a coated one. And anyone that has checked into up wouldn’t either.

        • Andy Oz says:

          Stainless steel only for me.

        • Chris Barron says:

          The ‘evidence’ that it contributed to Alzheimers has not been well supported…what else do you say it causes ? If you cared about people more than you claim to care about raptors you would say

          The fact that aluminium isn’t banned in restaurants is curious…..or perhaps aluminium pan manufacturers are wind turbine builders by another name…..another conspiracy for you to tinker with…..

          It’s easier to believe you’re a victim of conspirators in a dark room smoking cigars when the truth is that ordinary people are capable of far worse and not caring about it….

      • Streetcred says:

        Mate … you are clueless … aluminium is toxic to marine organisms … do some research before you spout your bullshit. Stop believing your hype!

        • Chris Barron says:

          At what concentration is it poisonous…without stating the danger limit and comparing it to the expected amount to be dissolved and diluted your argument has no basis in fact….but you knew that already

        • Chris Barron says:

          I’ll save you the trouble as you most likely will drag your feet because it’s easier….

          The claim is that 13000 tons of aluminium over a long period will be toxic. True ?

          Aluminum naturally occurs in waters in very low concentrations. Aluminum is toxic to fish in acidic, unbuffered waters starting at a concentration of 0.1 mg/L.
          Read more:

          0.1mg per litre is the limit of toxicity. True ?

          How many litres in the North Sea?
          Read on….

          The North Sea is 970km by 580km (give or take) True ?
          The area is therefore at least 562600000000 sq metres

          If the sea were ONLY 1 metre deep this would be 562600000000 cubic metres of water

          1 cubic metre of seawater weighs roughly 1 ton (specific gravity assumed to be 1 but this is close enough for a ballpark)
          1 ton of water contains 1000 litres

          So there are, approximately 562600000000000 litres of water

          Now dissolve 13000000000000 milligrams (13k tons) of aluminium into that and the concentration is ….

          13000000000000 / 562600000000000 = 0.0231 mg/L which is not of the order of magnitude to be harmful.

          Assumptions made are that all the aluminium is dissolved immediately (not over the slower time period claimed) and does not become reabsorbed into anything at all. It also ignores the fact that in truth everything in the sea will absorb a little bit of aluminum and therefore the concentration will be greatly reduced.

          True ? or where is the error ?

        • Chris Barron says:

          …and don’t forget that I quoted a sea depth of just 1 metre….the North Sea is often over 750m deep, rising to 15m at some moraines…if the average depth were 100m then the concetration would be 0.0231 mg/l divided by 100…or 0.000231 mg/L

          In other words you would need more than 1000 times more turbines releasing all aluminium all at once to come close to being toxic

          I also assumed there is no aluminium in the sea…there is already quite a lot, but the 13,000 tons here adds little to the overall level…again, not enough to come close to being toxic

        • A C Osborn says:

          You seem to be under the impression that it us who are saying it is Toxic.
          When it is Der Speigel.

          So go and argue with them with your silly calculations using the whole of the North Sea when everyone knows that Toxicity is usually local to wherever the Toxic Substance is.

        • Chris Barron says:

          A C Osborn are you unaware that a sea is usually comprised of water, and that because water in the sea usually flows around the whole planet, and does not stay in one place, it therefore carries any pollution all around the planet eventually.

          “So go and argue with them with your silly calculations using the whole of the North Sea”

          Exactly…. i should have really used the whole of the water in all seas connected to the North sea too…..silly of me I know…because when you do dissolve that much aluminium into that much water the effect is more negligible than before.

          OR, if you say I am wrong….don’t point to a link, show me the maths which you have used in order to convince yourself that this is a terrible environmental disaster…….BUT I assume that you have done some calculations and you aren’t just believing the hype

          Bauxite is the raw ore where we get aluminium from. the mining of bauxite has increased the level of aluminium in the seas, through contamination and pollution, to a level many times more than it ever was before we started mining it

          I drive a car with aluminium wheels, and aluminium engine, my motorbikes are the same…..huge amounts of bauxite were used just so that we can drive alloy engined cars with alloy wheels….and aluminium is difficult to avoid in modern life no matter how hard you try…..ships in the sea are carrying aluminium and zinc sacrificial anodes to prevent corrosion……

          And all along nobody said a word about all of this….but a few wind turbines get an aluminium sacrificial anode and the psycho biased hype mongerers appear from nowhere don’t they…nothing changes eh ?

        • Chris Barron says:

          Everyone here who drives a car, who has aluminium anywhere in their lives has contributed to some of the worst environmental disasters……but not a one gives a shit,….but, as soon as your pet hate pops up then, my god, what hypocrites….. really

          An increase in the aluminium concentration in the sea, caused by adding a few industrial standard sacrificial anodes, so small to be negligible, is your biggest concern is it ? Are you really so sure ? Say yes and be a hypocrite….

          Now go to google, look up ‘bauxite pollution’ and come back and explain why you never bothered about aluminium and caustic soda pollution before

        • Chris Barron says:

          The truth about bauxite mining in Jamaica ( the worlds third largest producer)
          Every ton of product produces 1 ton of toxic red mud

          Thats what goes into the making of your car, doorhandles, fixtures and fittings, foil for the cooking, every aircraft…..

          Now don’t dare think I am saying anything to attract the the title of a green environmentalist….I’m just concerned that some people don’t know the facts.

          I still enjoy driving my car and especially my bikes. so lets raise our glasses to Jamaica and the pollution problem it has to deal with.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Bauxite mining in Jamaica….

          “The overwhelming impact of the acquisition of their lands and the process of relocating them into new communities that are yet to be developed very frequently results in the separation of family group”

          …is breaking up families….that’s your aluminium products causing that….but fuck that, a minute increase in the oceanic aluminium level (still unproven) is way more important.

          Cheap tricks and heartstrings, should make this a post as acceptable as everyone else’s

        • Streetcred says:

          You’d best take up that with the desperately poor Jamaican Government. Just think, if you were able to transfer your faux concern for Jamaicans to the rest of the poor in the world whose lives are made that much more unbearable by the religious fervor of the renewable energy sect, maybe the plight of the poor and starving could be better addressed through access to inexpensive energy. You need to work harder on your sincerity.

        • Chris Barron says:

          No need to patronise Jamaica….it is very rich as nation

          As for the rest of the world’s poor….don’t most of them already benefit from renewables directly….solar stoves….small scale wind., microhydro…..everywhere where the cost of local energy resources have been pushed up beyond their reach thanks to our market forces you will see a huge and grateful renewables base

          No too many Africans can afford their own coal or gas, thanks to the likes of you and me

          There are literally thousands of projects doing this….so it isn’t me who is ignorant, really, is it ?

          It won’t come as a shock to you to be told that you need to be more humble, if I need to be more sincere

  27. Gail Combs says:

    The Eco-crucifixes are bad enough on land. They are even worse when placed in the sea.

    Environmental Researcher: Wind Industry Riddled with ‘Absolute Corruption’
    A Mexican ecologist has blown the whistle on the corruption, lies and incompetence of the wind industry – and on the massive environmental damage it causes in the name of saving the planet.

    Patricia Mora, a research professor in coastal ecology and fisheries science at the National Institute of Technology in Mexico, has been studying the impact of wind turbines in the Tehuantepec Isthmus in southern Mexico, an environmentally sensitive region which has the highest concentration of wind farms in Latin America.

    The turbines, she says in an interview with Truthout, have had a disastrous effect on local flora and fauna.

    When a project is installed, the first step is to “dismantle” the area, a process through which all surrounding vegetation is eliminated. This means the destruction of plants and sessilities – organisms that do not have stems or supporting mechanisms – and the slow displacement over time of reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians, insects, arachnids, fungi, etc.
    Generally we perceive the macro scale only, that is to say, the large animals, without considering the small and even microscopic organisms…

    ….After the construction is finalized, the indirect impact continues in the sense that ecosystems are altered and fragmented. As a result, there is a larger probability of their disappearance, due to changes in the climate and the use of soil.

    Then there is the damage caused by wind turbine noise:

    There is abundant information about the harm caused by the sound waves produced by wind turbines. These sound waves are not perceptible to the human ear, which makes them all the more dangerous. They are also low frequency sound waves and act upon the pineal and nervous systems, causing anxiety, depression (there is a study from the United States that found an elevated suicide rate in regions with wind farms), migraines, dizziness and vomiting, among other symptoms.

    But the wind turbine operators are able to get away with it because the system is so corrupt.

    What happens is absolute corruption. I have to admit that generally there are “agreements” behind closed doors between the consultants or research centers and the government offices before the studies are conducted. They fill out forms with copied information (and sometimes badly copied), lies or half truths in order to divert attention from the real project while at the same time complying with requirements on paper. Unfortunately, consultants sometimes take advantage of high unemployment and hire inexperienced people or unemployed career professionals without proper titles. Sometimes the consultants even coerce them into modifying the data.

    Research centers, pressured by a lack of funding, accept these studies. It is well known that scientists recognized by CONACYT (National Counsel on Science and Technology) accept gifts from these companies, given that they need money to buy equipment for their laboratories and to fill their pocketbooks to maintain their lifestyles. This is the extent of the corruption. Upon reviewing these studies, it is clear that the findings are trash, sometimes even directly copied from other sources online. These studies tend to focus on the “benefits of the project” and do not include rigorous analysis.

    The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) does follow-up to the studies, but everything can be negotiated. The bureaucrats have the last word.

  28. Gail Combs says:

    Angela Merkel’s Vice Chancellor Stuns, Declares Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ To Be on ‘The Verge Of Failure’!

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

    Latest peer reviewed study proves that the life of a bird chopper is 10 – 15 years not the 20 -25 years spun by the renewables industry and used by politicians for planning.

    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.

    • gator69 says:

      Labs have many different varieties of rats, and some wear white coats.

    • Chris Barron says:

      I’ll update my calculations for the profitability of a single turbine.

      Oh wait, I already used a life of 15 years………I already proved the point

      But lets use 10 years… order to show we considered the worst and the best case scenario

      2MW turbine, £3million
      replaced at years 10,20,30,40,50 at a cost of £400k each time

      Turbine costs, 60 years = £6.2 million

      For a 20% load factor, the electricity produced in 60 years is sold for over £11million

      There’s still a £5million profit…..

      • AndyG55 says:

        What a FARCE of a calculation.. so many unrealistic assumptions.

        replacement time 10 year … lol
        20% load factor roflmao !!

        And the electricity will only be sold as long as ridulous mandates to purchase are in existance.

        Companies what RELIABLITY of supply, something that wind will never be able to offer.

        When I see a contract that pays for on-time supply, to match market need, and fines heavily for not meeting that supply…… then I will start to look at wind as a possibility.

        But that just isn’t going to happen.

        Windy there still I see.. or are you relying on coal or gas again!

        Never can rely on wind.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “replacement time 10 year … lol”

          Industry people say 20-25 years….Gail says 10-15 years… I say 15-20 years

          What do you say if not 10 years ? (bear in mind, you just posted a picture of wind farm which you claimed was 30 years old)

          What is the life expectancy of a turbine nacelle ….after how many years does it need to be removed and replaced from the tower ?

          “20% load factor roflmao !!”

          Suggest an alternative…Gail has linked to sources saying 18%…the National Grid monitored all of Scotlands wind in 2013 and found 24%

          20% sits between those two estimates….why is that funny to you….why haven’t you suggested an alternative ?

        • AndyG55 says:

          You were saying 60 years. Again the messy side-stepping, hey.

          Still wuindy at your place?

          or are you unwilling to take up the dare to turn off your mains when there is now wind?

          Can’t even prove your unwarranted belief to yourself, not prepared to back up a word you say with unsubsidies action.

          What a sad little shill you are.!

      • AndyG55 says:

        this is what wind turbines look like after only 30 years.

        • Chris Barron says:

          As there is no installation data or data regarding when and where this image was made…no comment regarding why some nacelles have been remove, this image is just as easily titled ‘Wind turbines during refurbishment”

          You see Andy, proof is best done with maths, not spiritual intent

          But I do take your point about 30 years…it contradicts Gail’s figure of only 10-15 years so i guess you two have some talking to do to sing from the same sheet

        • Chris Barron says:

          I must correct myself, no nacelles are missing are they…a couple of rotors have been damaged…probably by the vandal raptors. The majority of turbines at this location appear to be intact Andy….even after 30 years (double Gails life expectancy predictions)

        • Chris Barron says:

          If they are 30 years old….and you just mocked the idea of them even lasting 10 years……….erm…… someone else signing in as Andy perhaps ? 😉

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your maths is full of unrealist proaganda assumptions.

          Its a joke. You know, and so does everyone else.

          Wind turbines can NEVER provide base-load, which is about 80% of demand in most countries. They are a toy that disrupts proper supply system and destroys the environment.

          The world will continue to be totally reliant of fossil fuels or nuclear for a long long time, (Japan are starting to head back towards coal, new coal fired power stations going up soon, they aren’t going to ruin their landscape with turbines like some other countries have stupidly done) and once a level playing field is acheived after the CO2 demonisation is dumped as the farce it is, someone is going to have to clean up all these useless monstrousities.

          But you won’t care about that, will you, unless you can get a taxpayer subsidy to do it. !

    • Furthermore since backup usually uses either coal or at best inefficient open cycle gas turbines, the amount of CO2 saved is minimal. Indeed it may well be that the wind turbines produce more CO2 than coal, once you account for the spinning reserve inefficiencies and also the life cycle assessment of their manufacturing costs in CO2e.

      A study of our state of South Australia found that the wind turbines save only about 4% of theoretical CO2 saving because they forced the backup fossil fuel plants to be extremely inefficient.

      Once you include life cycle I suspect you’d be better switching the wretched things off and just run your coal plants at max efficiency.

  29. gator69 says:

    Gail Combs says:
    March 18, 2015 at 12:25 am
    Gator, We have not been able to afford having the central heat or A/C on for over two years. (We have an electric heat pump.) Even with it turned completely off the bill for February was still over $300. The last time we had our cental heat on it cost over 1/4 of my husband’s SS + pension.

    Hey Gail! I have propane heat and refilled my tank at the worst time (paid 4X the usual rate due to heavy demand). I am very tight with my money and kept my thermostat at 58F during the day this winter, and 45F at night. It saves money and acclimates me to the severe cold here. My nearest neighbor was convinced by the electric company to go all electric in his construction to get a 20% discount on his rate (electric heat here is lunacy), and was paying $500-$700 per month to heat his 1600 square foot home, after our rates more than doubled a few years back (that is when we looked into wind turbines). I am currently semi-retired (thanks to Dodd-Frank, but at least I did not lose my home to that law like my disabled neighbor), and everything is paid for. I can weather the storms, but so many of my neighbors cannot, and have abandoned their dreams of living out here, thanks to idiots who cannot do basic math.

    I planned on a second great depression, and will survive this current madness, and I absolutely loathe those who have made my neighbors suffer, through their lies and insane agendas. But at least the a55holes will be warm for eternity.

  30. Ben Vorlich says:

    Chris Barron
    If you are still visiting I have answered you further up the thread.

    I’m still looking for a contract specifying 24/365 contract for optimum wind conditions, but don’t think that exists.

    You can find data on wind projects in the UK at the link below. This is a pro-renewable site so doesn’t mention the disadvantages, principally what do you do when the wind doesn’t blow.

    Compare output using data from here

    Using the 2015 wind generation data from gridwatch, and the installed base from renewableuk wind achieved greater than 50% for 3% of 2015, and less than 10% for 12% of the time. More telling though is the fact that the French and Dutch interconnectors supplied more power than the entire UK wind fleet for 33% of the time, that’s 1 day in 3. Note well that the French have hinted that the power will be going to Germany rather than the UK in the next few years, that’s assuming they have any spare when they switch from nuclear to wind.

    It’s a recipe for a long slow suicide of a continent.

    • A C Osborn says:


    • Gail Combs says:

      “…Note well that the French have hinted that the power will be going to Germany rather than the UK in the next few years, that’s assuming they have any spare when they switch from nuclear to wind.

      It’s a recipe for a long slow suicide of a continent.”

      And Putin and ISIS just LOVE IT!

    • AndyG55 says:

      “principally what do you do when the wind doesn’t blow.”

      The cowardly carrion is totally unwilling to take up the dare to turn off his mains power when there is no wind.

      Unwilling to put his living standards were his mouth is.

      The ONLY thing he cares about is that the taxpayer keeps paying his subsidies.

    • Chris Barron says:

      “It’s a recipe for a long slow suicide of a continent.”

      Oh the fear….it’s almost believable 😉

  31. Chris Barron says:

    Wow so many vocal people attacking the messenger. You ask me a question, I lay out the answer, you tell me I’m selling turbines. Hmmm this all feels like you don’t care that you can’t fault the figures on your own but have to resort to someone else’s form of scaremongering….you really love hype

    Why whinge to me…I’m not a decision maker in politics, I’m an electricity consumer, you’re so ineffective at talking to your politicians that you have to take it out on me…..I’m not fighting with you unarmed people any more. (Unless you can show your working out)

    • I’m not fighting with you unarmed people any more.

      Oh no! Please don’t threaten to never post here again & then renege! How will our egos survive such a battering?

    • Ben Vorlich says:

      Chris Barron
      I didn’t actually attack, but did point out that you are repeating hype which is easily verified as being just that.

      As I write the wind output in the UK is up at 1.02GW, which is about 8.5% of installed capacity and means that 11GW of backup is online and has been for 24 hours.

      As messenger could you go back to the source and tell them that the message is erroneous in many, many ways.

      According to Gridwatch since 1st October 2014 Renewables (wind pumped hydro and other) have exceeded 18% of demand for a total duration of 1185 hours, or 50 days. However take Other out of the equation then the picture changes quite a bit, the total duration in excess of 18% is 612 hours. As virtually all British Hydro was completed by the1960s take that out of the current policies dividend then the number further reduces to 258 hours. That is about 6% of the time. Would that be considered a good ROI on the Beauly-Denny transmission line?

      With a bit of effort I’ll be able to come back and tell you how much of that was 09:00 to 18:00 on weekdays.

      • Chris Barron says:

        “However take Other out of the equation then the picture changes quite a bit”

        Is this you giving us 100% confirmation that wind ‘non pumped hydro’ is not included in ‘Other’ ?

        My understanding that wind pumped hydro is one form of classification, not every wind classification. If I’m wrong perhaps you should correct me ?

    • Ben Vorlich says:

      Chris Barron
      There were 35 days where the total of 4 renewables (as above) exceeded 18% during working hours between 1st October 2014 and today for a total of 174 hours. just over 7 days in total, out of a total of 118 days (I have ignored bank holidays). Again about 6% of working hours covered by 18% renewable hours.

    • Ben Vorlich says:

      Chris Barron
      Just realised I halved the numer of working days,, so numbers should have been 14 days and 12%.
      Better but not value for money, and certainly not viable as an alternative.

      • Chris Barron says:

        If we only had 10% of the coal fired power plants which we needed it also wouldn’t be considered a viable alternative

        More installation, more output, more ability to meet demand.

        I have yet to see (and as you appear intelligent enough I hope you can do it) a single costing of a wind turbine which proves that subsidies are definitely required.

        The door is open…..make that case if you think it’s really true. Use your figures, don’t rely on a press piece

        • AndyG55 says:

          “which proves that subsidies are definitely required.’

          Ok, then let’s remove all those subsidies, and as well as that any mandated purchase agreements, mandated ridiculous feed-in tariffs etc etc

          Let the real market decide.

          Wind turbines would be a thing of the past.

          Unfortunately your children will know what a wind turbine WAS, because there rotting disused carcasses will still litter the landscape.

          YOu can BET that the people who put them there will have taken their money and scarpered, won’t you, Chris.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Where’s your proof ? Why twist what I said to be a question about your opinion. It asked for proof

          BUT, In answer to your question, as explained already, due to the long payback period, and the demand by industry to get funding from government because the government MADE THEM CHANGE THEIR BUSINESS MODEL WITHOUT CONSULTING THEM FIRST, in order to meet the government’s demand the government, on your behalf, needed to pay those subsidies or face the consequences.

          Nowhere is it more obvious than here in the UK where we have a truly deregulated and open energy business, when the government forces any large group of private businesses to invest heavily the government almost always pays up…examples are all over, even a stupid example where the government forced private nursing homes to increase room sizes by a couple of square metres, the homes complained and demanded some financial assistance, and won it

          It is normal business practice for so many sectors….when the government demands something a court is often asked to review the demands and see if there is a case whereby the government should provide some sort of assistance or compensation

          Now, where’s your numerical proof that wind definitely needs a subsidy in order to profitable in the long run Andy ? in the short term the money is required because an instantaneous expansion was required and no bank will lend money to a company which won’t begin repaying the loan for 8 years when it can buy and sell gold and make more money in the same period….but do feel free to prove me wrong

        • AndyG55 says:

          Still windy at your place I see.

          Come putz.. turn off your mains when there is no wind, I dare you.

          When I see you ask for all wind subsidies, feed-in tariffs, mandated purchase etc to be removed I will start considering you as a company shill, as long as they remain, it is a stilted market. Guarantees of money evening if they don’t produce electricity.

          Let the wind companies sign agreements for delivery of electricity on an as-needed basis, with fines if that supply is not met.. come on, agitate for that, I dare you.

          Wind turbines are always destined to be nothing but a wasteful FAD, a feel good anti-environment toy. I hope you have enough money from your subsidies to help with their removal, or is that too, going to be left to further taxpayer payments..

        • Chris Barron says:

          Andy says “”Wind turbines are always destined to be nothing but a wasteful FAD, ”

          For all I like you Andy, you really don’t know how to support your statements with proof

          I. ME, has never said we can turn off coal……….or gas….I am anti nuclear but in my youth I was pro nuclear…time has changed my view.

          100 years of coal left (less as China expands)….100 years of uranium left (price increasing soon)…thorium not working – every productive thorium reactor has been turned off, many with technical issues.

          I just think for the the long term these days…except when I ride my bikes, probably having children does that to you

        • AndyG55 says:

          “you really don’t know how to support your statements with proof”

          And you really haven’t got the guts to support your claims with action. Very weak indeed.

          But you just keep on raking in those subsidies, like a good little advocate.

        • Chris Barron says:

          This is me Andy…send me a message and I’ll repost it here to prove it

          No subsidies ever make it this way……I do okay anyway though…I stuff dead raptors and sell them to the Chinese…big profit mate…huge profit

        • gator69 says:

          An anti-semite! Who would have guessed? 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          I’m into photography too Andy.

          Here’s one I stuffed earlier

          I’ve got nothing to hide pal….how about you ?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Well you certainly aren’t hiding your LACK OF BELIEF in your own BS..

          No actions, just meaningless word.

          I’m perfectly content to exist solely on coal and gas for energy,

          you OBVIOUSLY aren’t prepared to back up your BS by existing solely on wind….

          … maybe on hot air, and subsidies , though.

      • Chris Barron says:

        Anti semite ? No .
        I stand shoulder to shoulder with the other jews who feel the same as me….considering my grandfather was named Abrahams it is the least I can do

        Still nothing to hide…

        Keep going Gator, you will get bored before me

  32. AndyG55 says:

    I heve another job for Chris.

    Dead bnird collector for anew wind farm.

    Pointless after 2 ir 3 years, nothing left to collect. !

    Somehow he has to be introduced to reality rather than paid as a propaganda shill.

    • Chris Barron says:

      Andy, Edinburgh is 20 miles from here and every year there is a world renown comedy festival. You’re humour deserves a stage of it’s own…people would be interested to hear more of this…..come along

      • AndyG55 says:

        So still avoiding the challenge.. deflect, deflect, hide , hide. !!

        So much for your belief in your meaningless garbage.

        If you don’t believe yourself , you are never going to persuade anyone else of your BS. !!

        • Chris Barron says:

          It’s honestly you who should fess up about being ill informed Andy

          You claim that a load factor of 20% for wind is worthy of a ROFL….but then it’s pretty much the figure which people on both sides of the argument, for and aqainst, use more than many others….and when asking you to suggest an alternative you shut up !
          Feel free to suggest a figure for a typical load factor Andy…in the interests of recovering your reputation.

          You claim that wind turbines won’t last 10 years….you say a ten year lifetime is a ridiculous figure to use. Gail t Combs claims 10-15, I say 15-20 and many industry people claim even higher. So as you can see you have asserted that everybody except you is wrong….well come on then fella….what figure do YOU use ? (And as a reminder you have already posted a photo claiming that it was of 30 year old turbines)

          You know in your heart of hearts that 20% is not a contentious figure to use…..and that 10-20 years isn’t an unreasonable figure for the life of turbines (conditions permitting)….and you don’t dare to suggest other figures. Are yiou scared of something Andy ?

          I am more than happy to be criticised if you have the wherewithal to come up with alternative figures which can be examined for accuracy too, just like mine can

          Why not prove that wind turbines cannot be viable without subsidies (something you claim very strongly)

        • AndyG55 says:

          So still avoiding

          Put your mouth where it fits

          Live on JUST wind.. nope NOT going to do it are you !!!

          Limp-wrist !!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Why not prove that wind turbines cannot be viable without subsidies ”

          OK, I dare you to activate for the removal of all subsidies and feed-in tariffs above coal cost, and mandate preferences, also to implement supply contracts etc etc.. ..

          Come on..

          Back up your empty rhetoric..

          You have NOTHING !!!

          You refuse to rely JUST on wind, because you KNOW IT DOESN’T WORK !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          You really are a cowardly little worm, aren’t you..

          Not prepared for one instance to back up you empty rhetoric with some actual action.

          Come on little worm..

          Get some guts from somewhere. !!

        • Chris Barron says:

          Please, just point me to a message where I claimed wind could provide 100% electricity at all times.

          It was all in your head…in fact it was only you who said that I said it, and no, I never said anything of the sort.

          You decided to make some sort of ego challenge out of it, not me. You’re still wayyyyyy off backing up anything you have claimed. Unlike me, who wasn’t dumb enough to claim anything other than wind turbines are viable AND I backed it up with figures AND you haven’t been able to prove them wrong ….BUT, what you did prove was that an ill informed human can jump to the wrong conclusion just because it feels like the right thing to do.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Dandy says “OK, I dare you to activate for the removal of all subsidies and feed-in tariffs above coal cost, and mandate preferences, also to implement supply contracts etc etc.. ..”

          A dare ? Grow up

          But even then….why destroy the opportunity to develop a depoliticised source of electricity which will not cost an arm and a leg ? You never know what you will need in 30 years time.

  33. gator69 says:

    Strawman’s twin brother asks…

    Does christianity have a home country Gator…if yes, have christians stopped being persecuted (that assume that some christians have been persecuted)

    When in recent history did anyone build ovens in which to cook Christians? The US protects Christians (for now), but the current administration here just tried to undermine the sole refuge of Jews.

    Are you proud of your stupidity?

    BTW idiot, Christian is spelled with a capital ‘C’.

    • Chris Barron says:

      Oh okay Gator….so is Israel a jewish country, or is it a country with some jewish disciples among the mixed population.

      If you can answer that then you can tell Netanyahu…because he can’t say either.

      How very stupid of you to claim to be more knowledgeable than Israel’s own leader.

      • gator69 says:

        It is the best chance Jews have for security. Now read your book and find out from where your anti-semite talking points come.

        I will await your book report with bated breath! 😆

        • gator69 says:

          You can find it on Amazon, and I hear it sold well alongside Mein Kampf…

        • Chris Barron says:

          You seem to be quite the expert on extremism……

          I guess you’re religious…hoping for a heaven when the brain switches off and the very memories of your own experiences go away.

          You’ve got a thing for religion…….

        • gator69 says:

          I am an expert on truth, and you hate humanity, just some more than others.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Well if i could pull a favour from you , would you mind telling Andy the truth about life expectancy for wind turbines ….Do you agree with Gail ? (10-15 years) Do you agree with Andy (not even 10 years, not even close, ever), Do you agree with me (15-20 years)….or do you use another figure as the truthful value ?

          What about the figure for load factor….as you are an expert in truth I would like to know if you agree with Andy who laughs at a load factor of 20% ? What is the true figure ?

        • gator69 says:

          The truth lies somewhere in the middle, some turbines fail within five years, some in 25, and some never produce squat. The truth is that fossil fueled power plants work all the time and meet our needs far more economically. Wind turbines are a losing investment.

          As an added benefit, fossil fuel plants do not cause additional fuel poverty deaths, but then you don’t care about that.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Fuel poverty deaths have always been a feature of a capitalist society. Turn the clocks back more than 30 years and the number of deaths from fuel poverty were not insignificant, back in the days when all power came almost exclusively from coal and gas.
          But you don’t care about that

          Many people have died when coal and gas power station workers took it onto themselves to strike and Britain was plunged into darkness.

          In order to assist the poor the UK government have provided free wall and loft insulation to anyone who claimed benefits or family income support, myself included, as a responsible long term way to help most of those in need. This I hope you can agree is the much preferred way to help. Left to themselves most people would soon prefer to just consume more energy within a low efficiency building, without addressing one of the main reasons why fuel poverty occurs – heat loss

        • gator69 says:

          What bulletproof logic. 😆

          Because people have always died, let’s just kill more. Got it.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Living in a cold home can increase the likelihood of ill health, including
          hypertension, heart disease, stroke, influenza and asthma. In the UK,
          around 1.2 million households are in fuel poverty

          : that is, if in order to
          maintain a satisfactory temperature throughout the house, it is
          required to spend more than 10% of its income on heating.1,2 Of those
          who suffer fuel poverty, one million of these are in vulnerable groups,
          ■ older people, particularly those living alone; ■ households containing children (especially very young children),
          including lone parents;
          ■ people with disabilities; ■ people with long term illness; ■ single person households.

          Fuel poverty involves a complex interplay of factors such as:
          ■ energy efficiency of the property (including inefficient or absent
          heating systems);
          ■ energy costs (including the cost of heating the property); ■ household income; ■ household composition (under-occupancy increases the likelihood
          of fuel poverty);
          ■ housing tenure; and ■ external environment

          In Wales fuel poverty is major problem….because 47000 people have no access to mains gas.

        • gator69 says:

          Thanks for backing up my argument against unreliable and expensive energy.

          Case closed.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I just wanted to clarify that the historic nature of fuel poverty remains unchanged….even despite there being a lot of help from the government.

          If we flip this on it’s head, what you suggest is that nobody should die of fuel poverty…and I would support you….suggest how that can be done

        • Chris Barron says:

          Or do you use logic like you use emotions ?

          I would never say fuel poverty is not important…but using emotion on it’s own there seems to be .no way to eliminate it.

          Would you support a scheme where handouts, subsidies, welfare breaks are dispatched to anyone who has to spend more than 10% of there income on maintaining the temperature range of 18-21 celsius (the way fuel poverty is defined at the moment)

          Or are you in fact just simply saying to me that power should always be as cheap as possible, and then if someone dies of fuel poverty nobody can blame energy companies and oh, well, it was just a shame

        • gator69 says:

          How many pints have you had today Chris? 😆

          The truth is this world is not perfect, and there are no perfect answers. But the way to deal with fuel poverty is not to make it worse (duh).

          I apologize for having feelings for unnecessary deaths. My bad. I should have known you would not understand, being the great intellect that you are. 😆

          Oooops, there I go emoting again!

        • Chris Barron says:

          Yes exactly.

          You do not have a damn clue how to solve the problem because as we know, nobody wants to pay to solve it, least of all you.

          The coal mines in Europe, from where we get a lot of coal, which are being forced to close because they are unprofitable, could remain in production if the EU subsidies were not going to be removed in 2018.

          The cost of the subsidies have to be paid by someone and as is usually the case the customer, in this case the energy company, would be forced to pay a higher price through either a tax hike or some other mechanism.

          Now this puts up the cost of electricity, to the poor fuel impoverished again.

          I repeat the question, what is your solution ?
          “But the way to deal with fuel poverty is not to make it worse (duh).”…really isn’t going to work out in the long run. Should you really care as much as you say you would have thought it through by now.

          Lets not just ‘not make it worse’, lets actually figure out a solution.(or live with it and live to shrug again)

        • gator69 says:

          😆 😆 😆 (There I go emoting again!)

          Chris the Grim Reaper says the only answer is expensive unreliable energy that will kill even more people.

          I have nothing more to add! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Gator of cloud cuckoo land will definitely be emoting in 10 years time for sure if nothing changes

        • gator69 says:

          Sorry for laughing at you Chris, I just find idiots amusing.

          Now save us all some money and just kill your neighbors with a rock.

        • Chris Barron says:

          So much that you try to be one

        • gator69 says:

          Seek help Chris, projection is a mental disorder.

          You are the fool who cares not about rising death tolls from your insistence on unreliable and overly expensive energy.

          I opt for cheap energy and fewer deaths.

          Sad attempt at an attack on me, but do keep trying, it makes you look so noble! 😆

          Oooops! There I go emoting again!

        • AndyG55 says:

          For the hypocritical coward, barren Chris

          No wind, no solar…

          SAVED by coal and nuclear.

          What a totally WASTE of money this wind and solar crap really is !!!

        • Chris Barron says:

          Your solution to the fuel poverty death situation is to have cheaper fuel, yes ?

          How cheap does it need to be for there to be no fuel poverty deaths ?

          Ah wait a minute…you didn’t say that did you ? You aren’t trying to stop all deaths here, just fuel price related ones

          Hmmm…maybe most fuel poverty deaths are not so much an issue about fuel prices after all.

          And maybe you don’t care about the other deaths, just the fuel price related ones.

          The sad ting is you are powerless to change any of it, you don’t like that situation, and you make me your target because in your head that equates to ‘really getting things done’

          You will never save a life this way, save your breath

        • gator69 says:

          I expected a strawman argument from the original strawman, and you did not disappoint. 😆

          Once again, you ignored my previous posts, oh brainless wonder.

          I said there are no perfect answers, only better solutions. And that means not killing more at risk poor. But then I love my neighbors, unlike you, Grim Reaper.

          God you are dumb, and dumber, all in one. 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Andy has not a clue of what makes up an effective futureproof energy mix….discards all the evidence that coal is screwed thanks to Russia and that gas is price trap in the making.

          No I have not said wind can take all the pain away…but i do understand we do need a very diverse mix so that as resources of traditional fuels become scarcer, or too costly to use at today’s electricity prices, or so cheap that producing them is uneconomic (uranium is about there now for example) …that you don’t fall for the illusion that just because you can simply get something out of the ground and use it to boil water that you are home and dry

          It is perhaps because of 2D thinking like yours Andy that the governments and the engineers who actually do use calculators have long since given up trying to explain things to you in the simplistic terms which you seem to need.

          You give the impression that you are entitlted to demand whatever you want and then get it, so you are hardly even weaned in that respect

          If it is all going to be so great just using gas why aren’t we using 100% gas, why aren’t we using 100% coal, or 100% nuclear for that matter ? What did you just say ? did you just say it is impossible to do that ? I hope that’s what you said because this is the reality of the situation.

          Now , stop plagiarising other peoples arguments and jumping on their bandwagons…produce a bit of Andy maths….

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Once again, you ignored my previous posts, oh brainless wonder.”

          I’ve responded to pretty much all of them , and I believe it is you who ignores the request for simple things….like proof

        • gator69 says:

          Yep, you would ‘think’ you responded. Strawmen are not all that bright, but most do not hate humanity, you are unique.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Are you not feeling the love ? You certainly want everything to be fair but I’m sorry….

        • gator69 says:

          Find a local AA chapter Chris.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Find a calculator and develop some proof

        • AndyG55 says:

          Back up your windy propaganda with actions that prove your really believe in it.

          I’ve made some suggestions.. and you have run, and squirmed and wriggled…..

          Maybe you just need to grow some balls. !!

        • Chris Barron says:

          Back up your windy propaganda with actions that prove your really believe in it.

          I’ve made some suggestions.. and you have run, and squirmed and wriggled…..

          Maybe you just need to grow some balls. !!

          Wow Andy…that’s like saying “I made some huge errors when criticising your figures which claimed the load factor of a turbine can be reasonably assumed to be 20%, and i am sorry about that Chris”

          no problem Andy….let me know if you need help with any more maths okay ?

          My proof is out in the open , in this thread, it remains intact in the form of the calculations which you needed me to do for you.

          Do you know how many terrawatts hours of electricity are produced each year by a 170MW steam powered generator which runs for 14 hours per day ? I thought not

        • AndyG55 says:

          Let me know when you have the balls to actually do something to show that you believe in your childish propaganda rhetoric.

          Until then, you are nothing but a ranting hypocrite.

          If you don’t even believe it yourself, and you very obviously don’t, you really are just going to be laughed at. Even a village idiot like you should know that.

  34. nutso fasst says:

    Wind farms increase Germany’s CO2 output while impoverishing consumers:

    Many German consumers can no longer afford to feed their cats, forcing the poor creatures to take up residence under wind turbines.

    • Chris Barron says:

      Increases in CO2 are welcomed by all plants and trees, nobody should complain about that

      An efficient gas turbine is important to the UK….we import the majority of our gas these days so need to use it carefully.

      Of course there is nothing to stop Siemens from selling to existing gas fired plants as part of a modernisation program and I fully expect that they will do just that, hopefully here int he UK

      I don’t think the claim that it provides 1,400MW is correct…and indeed when clicking on the information page for Siemens you see that the output is less than half of that at best, normally operating between 400 – 600MW

      • Chris Barron says:

        I note the final paragraph is very telling…
        “Already the federal government has intervened and forbidden the mothballing of several gas power plants. ”

        Nothing to fear really

  35. Chris Barron says:

    In the UK we get at least 50% of our coal from Russia….other countries in the EU buy less from there….but there are trade deals at play and you cannot switch suppliers easily because there is simply not enough coal being produced in any one place for everyone to pick a single preferred supplier nation.

    Russia can , and does, play games with fuel supplies. Recently they stopped supplying coal to Ukraine. Bear in mind that Ukraine sells most of it’s coal to the EU and being the fourth largest coal miner they could have had enough for themselves had it not been for the coal trade agreements they were bound by.

    A Ukrainian winter is harsh, and Russia cut off their coal in November, causing fuel poverty. The war for Ukraine is as much about Russia getting it’s hands on Ukraines huge volumes of natural resources as it is playing with seperatists and their motives.

    Had Russia got it’s way then Ukraine’s coal would have been Russia’s coal and we in the west would have been sitting ducks for Putin. As it is, I don’t feel that there is sufficient fuel security to think we are out of the woods yet.

    In the last 3 years the price of coal has fallen dramatically, despite demand for coal rising in the same period. Coal has fallen from about 90 Euro per ton to 70 Euro per ton in 3 years.

    At a price of 90 Euro many older coal mines are feasible. At the lower price they are unsustainable.

    This puts the emphasis on supplies coming from cheaper sources. You know where.

    The forecast is for a huge increase in gas consumption, because coal is not able to meet current demands thank to a thriving Chinese economy. You would think that an increase in demand would secure a higher price for coal than it actually does, but the situation is not as simple as that.

    As we turn to using more gas we need to look to the gas resources and see if they are sustainable. At the moment the situation where the recoverable gas resources are no longer financially viable is a few years off, but it is going to come, the industry knows it is unavoidable.

    This means that the only way for prices to go in the future is up , and then up again. Anybody who thinks that we can keep today’s energy mix even for the 15 years and not pay higher prices because of the rising costs of fossil fuel recovery are in for a nasty shock.

    Or someone needs to take Putin to one side and introduce him to some new ideas

    Lets pin our fossil fuel hopes on gas then…….coal is dying a slow death. There was recently a slowdown in the rate of consumption in the US which has been attributed entirely to the rise in gas price.

    In it’s place money has been put into the fixed cost renewable sector as well spending more money on the more expensive coal.(a fixed cost is a secure cost and market prices for coal or gas do not affect your production costs)

    At what point will be hoping that the cost of fossil fuels goes down ? If the prices go down is that a good thing anyway ? The recent drop in oil price meant that over 90% of all shale oil recovery became financially unsustainable

  36. Gail Combs says:

    Internet trolls have a mental disorder
    [Originally published in “Psychology Today”]
    An Internet troll is someone who joins an online discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, it is quickly evident that their sole purpose is to upset everyone. They will lie, exaggerate, defame and vituperate just to create a response and derail a thread.
    Some researchers from Canada sought to find out what type of person would do this and why. Their study, published in the September 2014 issue of Personality and Individual Differences, found that cybertrolling was an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.
    Researchers conducted two online studies of 1,200 people. They gave personality tests to each one and surveyed their Internet commenting behavior. They were looking for evidence of what is termed the “Dark Tetrad” of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism. What they found was that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said their favorite activity was trolling.
    The study authors wrote that the Dark Tetrad scores were off the charts for Internet trolls and “… the associations between sadism and GAIT (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling) scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists.”
    Of course, this does not apply to all trolls. Some are simply government or nongovernment agency disinformation agents. Intelligence services, corporations, governments and politicians have all been outed as having disinformation trolls roaming Internet sites.
    But it’s just as likely the annoying troll on your favorite site is simply mentally ill. When you respond, you’re just feeding his psychopathy.

    The best advice is, if you see one, don’t feed him.

    Chris The Wind Barron is that you?

    • Chris Barron says:

      Lol Gail.

      You invented a persona for me which made me into some sort of wind research company CEO…you accused me of all sorts of things….you cannot cope with the fact that someone can think that climate alarmists are dead heads, but that some aspects of renewable power are not quite the scourge of society that some will try to tell you they are….you struggle to pigeonhole me…but that’s okay

      Here you go again, calling me a troll…why ? Just because I suggest that people shouldn’t just jump onto a bandwagon just like they did for the AGW con ?

      People jumped onto the AGW bandwagon when there was no proof that CO2 caused a problem…and those people , fresh with the thrill of thinking they have not been outsmarted, that they saw through the lies, they suddenly think they’re invincible.

      There is no proof at all that CO2 changes the climate in any significant way, and there is no proof that wind turbines cannot operate at w profit without subsidies. Just because the wind industry receives subsidies does not mean that wind cannot run for decades at a profit, in exactly the way which I showed with maths which ….strangely…have yet to be disputed, but be my guest.

      I don’t want to read your attempt at a rebuttal based solely on the words of a plant life specialist…I just want your version of the same simple maths.

      You were right that CO2 isn’t a problem, but just because you got that right doesn’t automatically mean you are right at everything you don’t like in the climate/renewables strata…or else you are just someone who believes what they want to and don’t bother to check that their idea matches reality with some ballpark figure validity checking of their own figures.

      Call it trolling or whatever you want I don’t mind, just don’t think that you can call what you do science. It looks like religion and sounds like religion…so it must be…

      Pray now

      • Gail Combs says:

        ….Of course, this does not apply to all trolls. Some are simply government or nongovernment agency disinformation agents. Intelligence services, corporations, governments and politicians have all been outed as having disinformation trolls roaming Internet sites.

        No one who has looked into wind power could possible see it as providing energy for a decent civilization Not even the IPCC. That makes you a TROLL

        From the climategate e-mails — ClimateGate (1) email 0889554019:

        Dear Colleagues:

        I am sending you a copy of Ged Davis’ IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft on storylines and scenarios. The text is appended below…

        The scenarios developed are a function of the different directions taken by technological change. The key question is which primary resources may become economically accessible in the future, and which technologies will become available to convert these primary resources into the final goods and services demanded by consumers. In the energy area, resources/technologies are key variables in determining the timing and nature of the transition away from currently dominant conventional oil and gas.

        Four pathways are possible:
        1. Progress across all resources and technologies.
        2. “Clean coal” technologies: environmentally friendly except for GHG emissions and possible resource extraction impacts.
        3. “Oil/Gas”: smooth transition from conventional to unconventional oil and gas, tapping the vast occurrences of unconventional fossil fuels, including methane clathrates.
        4. “Bio-Nuclear”: rapid technological progress in non-fossil supply and end-use technologies, e.g. renewables, such as solar and biomass combustion, nuclear and hydrogen-fuelled end-use devices, such as fuel cells.

        For the scenario quantification, a number of contrasting cases, characterised by the main energy form used in the second half of the 21st century, have been evaluated with the aid of formal energy models:
        1. The dominance of Non-Fossil fuels — the “Bio-Nuclear” scenario (A1R).
        2. The dominance of unconventional gas, including hydrates, and oil (A1G)
        3. The dominance of “Clean Coal” (A1C)

        A brief scenario taxonomy is given below…..

        Notice Wind is ABSENT!

        • Chris Barron says:

          Here we go again,
          “No one who has looked into wind power could possible see it as providing energy for a decent civilization ”

          It’s religious claptrap

          You are asserting that I have not looked into it ? (you saw my figures and didn’t find a way to dispute them)

          You are asserting that a ‘decent’ civilisation is one which does not include renewables ? Interesting…add an ‘s’ and you get the word descent…which is who the golden days of fossil fuels started to go recently

          Not a single bit of what you wrote formed mathematical proof that wind is not viable. As usual. Religious nonsense belongs in the religious nonsense heap

        • Chris Barron says:

          “renewables, such as”

          I don’t know what level your English is at.

          ‘such as’ is a term used to give *some* examples which are representative of what is meant. I see nuclear is renewable ? Well, the French did okay out of that one.

          In English, ‘Such as’ means ‘ including but not limited to’ .

        • Chris Barron says:

          Proof of what I say, is that hydro is also missing…….the last time I looked it still rains

        • Chris Barron says:

          Anything else for me ?

          Or are you going to get busy, finding proof that wind turbines are not financially viable ?

        • Gail Combs says:

        • Chris Barron says:

          Ha !

          No proof

        • Chris Barron says:

          Gail says “Notice Wind is ABSENT!”

          when you make a mistake…or worse, when you lie by trying to assert to someone that they should just believe what you say, you can easily get found out when they check up for themselves.

  37. gator69 says:

    Gail, we are dealing with another Hope. But this Hopeless wonder is a religious wind turbine worshiper who does not care about facts or human lives. He has repeatedly demonstrated his disregard for all logic and ethics.

    Plus he just gets worse as his blood alcohol level increases. We have witnessed this night after night.

    We support cheap and reliable energy to reduce fuel poverty deaths, and Hopechris disagrees.

    Only a sick mind would argue for unreliable energy that leads to more death.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The Idocy is DAMNED expensive too!

      President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

      ….It is no secret that President Obama’s and green energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

      The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

      So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. …

    • Chris Barron says:

      “who does not care about facts or human lives”

      Considering that I am the only one who used facts, in the form of numbers, and invited corrections, which never materialised, and in the absence of ANY OTHER NUMERICAL PROOF…..well… isn’t me who should feel the need to reconsider.after all

    • Gail Combs says:

      It is even more expensive for the poor suckers in the UK.

      2011 Nine out of 10 families will be forced to ration their heating this winter

      The soaring cost of gas and electricity is forcing more households to turn off heating. Research from uSwitch suggests 89 per cent of families will ration their energy use this winter to save on bills.

      Taking the blame is the 21 per cent hike in energy prices in the past 12 months which has left the average household having to find an extra £224 for heating. “As the cost of our energy bills escalates people are being forced into making potentially dangerous choices,” warns Ann Robinson, director of consumer policy at uSwitch.

      “Whether they sacrifice something else to keep the heating on or turn the heating off to pay for something else, there is a modern-day Russian roulette going on in homes up and down the country.”

      Last winter, more than half of all households went without heating at some point to keep their energy costs down, risking health and well-being. Worse, almost seven million households are in fuel poverty, with single parents and pensioners the worst-hit….

      I ended up with walking pneumonia or asthma (not sure which since I can not afford a doctor) thanks to not having central heating and A/C for the last two plus years so I know what the poor suckers in the UK are going through.

      • gator69 says:

        I was a regular backpacker for many years before I started building my retirement home. Out overnight virtually every weekend to keep in shape, and field test equipment for longer trips. This included the very coldest of nights. Thanks to those countless cold nights I learned how to live in sub zero weather, and currently use those skills to stay warm in my remote home. My electricity rates more than doubled about 8 years ago thanks to ‘renewables’ that were required by Big Brother. My neighbors suffered badly, and we looked into commercial turbines to offset our miserable costs.

        So Chris, I have done the calculations, with my neighbors. And it was unanimous, turbines suck money, and suck at meeting our needs.

        Prove us all wrong. Put your money where your fat alcoholic mouth is. Build your turbine without OP money, and see how you fare. That means no cheating when your precious bird shredders refuse to rotate, and no products derived from other energy sources.

        Or you can be just another barking Hope. 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          I’ve already published the calculations in this thread….I’ve even modified them to use figures others have suggested as corrections…and still they show a profit…and still you don’t like it and choose to ignore it…..and find PR pieces from newsrags and biased blogs which I am supposed to sit here and think to myself “Oh yes, that’s more like the real picture isn’t it…doing maths with words instead of with numbers” It is you who has the problem

          You dare to think that the cost of fossil fuels have not gone up in recent years…you would have all low paid workers live without a payrise ever….why are the frontline workers not allowed to get a payrise which would put up the price of your fuels….why is it that you think gas and coal are never going to be more difficult to recover as time passes ? As the easy reserves are used up rapidly the more difficult ones need to be recovered, at a higher price…….The cost of the materials to make the plant and oil the wheels that do the work has risen dramatically in the same timeframe as you’re talking about but…..woah….a mere 250,000 wind turbines in the world , according to you, was all it took to bring financial calamity to this planet.

          Sanity check of the figures to make sure we understand that your statement is ridiculous
          If every single one of the 250,000 turbines cost £3million to install, then the cost would have been £750 billion .lets say $1.2 trillion.

          $1.2 trillion ? do yiu agree that if every wind turbine installed cost £3million then in total they would have cost $1.2 trillion…..and if every one was installed with taxpayers money…lets say the US paid for every wind turbine in the world, then the US taxpayers have subsidised the worlds wind energy business to the tune of $1.2 trillion and that is what is behind the fuel poverty deaths ? Is that your belief now ?

  38. Gail Combs says:


    Angela Merkel’s Vice Chancellor Stuns, Declares Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ To Be on ‘The Verge Of Failure’!

    The green energy orgy in Germany is over. The music has stopped and the wine that once flowed freely has long run out. The green energy whores and pimps can go home.

    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.”….

    • Chris Barron says:

      ” a model that has been adopted by a number of countries worldwide, is “on the verge of failure.”

      In the history of mankind, how many times have those words been spoken only to have been proven to have been spoken because of a myriad of interesting reasons, financial interest, political agenda, or simply personal bias.

      Dear Mr Putin, it has come to our attention that we pay insufficient amounts for our overpriced coal, please do something about it.

      Dear Saudi Arabia, the LNG which you ship to us and unload at the Isle of Grain terminal should never be this expensive ? What is that ? You want us to put pressure on Israel or you will charge us more ? Sure thing buddies.

      If only we could get an energy supplier who didn’t fuck about with our lives…..

  39. gator69 says:

    Chris Barron says:
    Find a calculator and develop some proof.


    I don’t need a calculator to know unreliable and expensive energy kills more people. But then I am not an idiot, like you.

    Find an AA sponsor, then seek psychiatric help.

    • Chris Barron says:

      “I don’t need a calculator to know unreliable and expensive energy kills more people. But then I am not an idiot, like you.”

      Don’t be so damn sure…..seriously 😉

      • gator69 says:

        Put down the bottle Chris, you are killing yourself and your neighbors. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

        Denying facts is a sad, sad mental breakdown. Even Hope knew when to give up. Are you dumber than Hope? We will see.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I do have a problem….we don’t need to love each other to talk about science….we don’t even have to like each other in order to agree or disagree that figures being used to establish a ‘truth’ are correct or not…….but we still do need the figures….so to do your reputation a great deal of good it would be useful if you can just admit that your math sucks, and that wind turbines provide a useful long term alternative to the quagmire sources which some ill informed folk seem to think are readily available and value for money fuels.

  40. gator69 says:

    Odd that only idiots and shysters support windmills. Which one are you Chris?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Paid Troll or derives income in some manner from Bat Smashing Bird Slicing Eco-Crucifixes.

    • Chris Barron says:

      “Odd that only idiots and shysters support windmills. Which one are you Chris?”

      While we continue to wait for you to find the somehow strangely lacking proof that wind energy is not financially viable, I might get around to considering your question, but probably won’t

  41. Gail Combs says:

    The DUTCH (and who knows wind power better than the Dutch) say Wind Power SUCKS!

    Electricity in The Netherlands
    Wind turbines increase fossil fuel consumption & CO2 emission.
    C. le Pair

    First we describe the models presently used by others to calculate fuel saving and reduction of CO2 emission through wind developments. These models are incomplete. Neglected factors diminish the calculated savings.
    Using wind data from a normal windy day in the Netherlands it will be shown that wind developments of various sizes cause extra fuel consumption instead of fuel saving, when compared to electricity production with modern high-efficiency gas turbines only. We demonstrate that such losses occur.
    Factors taken into account are: low thermal efficiency at low power; cycling of back up generators; energy needed to build and to install wind turbines; energy needed for cabling and net adaptation; increase of fuel consumption through partial replacement of efficient generators by low-efficiency, fast reacting OCGTs.

    1. Introduction

    Several countries are investing heavily in the construction of wind turbines reportedly to save fossil fuel and to reduce CO2 emission. The wind comes free, the turbines do not pollute and there is no need to burn fossil fuel. However, this simple notion defended by staunch supporters of windturbines, has been criticized by several critical analysts, e.g. refs: 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12.
    Wind does not blow according to the demand of electricity users. Sometimes there is no wind or too little wind, or too much. It would be no problem if there was an economic and practical way to store electricity and to use it from that storage whenever needed. Unfortunately we currently do not have such a storage option. Batteries have little capacity and they are much too expensive. There are other possibilities but none of them comes near to anything that is economically feasible. There is hydro power, (i.e. lakes in mountains) that can be pumped full if there is an electricity surplus and emptied when the power is needed. But this adds more cost to an already high-cost option. (With hydro storage, one loses a quarter to one third of the energy input.) For geographic reasons, most wind development locations don’t have this option anyway. This is certainly the case in the Netherlands. So the current practice is to have wind developments operate in connection to conventional powerplants. These generators step in when the wind fails and they can be switched off, or their output is reduced, if the wind blows. Thus, when considering wind power, one must factor in an augmenting conventional system (typically gas). A handicap complicating the selection of options is the absence in the public domain of factual data about the different producing units. So the arguments are mostly based on model computations, but there are exceptions. In the USA a BENTEK study used real emission data of power plants in Texas and Colorado. They became available due to the Freedom of Information Act. Its conclusion was: wind has no visible influence on fuel consumption for electricity production and the emission of CO2 in the atmosphere is not reduced13.
    This shocking result did not convince decision makers yet. The negative result was attributed to a difference in fuel mix. Coal-, oil-, gas- and nuclear heated generators behave differently. So what might be true in that study, does not mean that it holds true for all of us.

    In August 2011 Fred Udo analyzed the data put on the internet by EirGrid, the grid operator in Ireland. His web page article was termed by colleagues abroad ‘The smoking gun of the windmill fraud’. He showed that a substantial wind contribution in the Irish Republic caused such a small saving of fuel (and of CO2 emissions), that it shattered a major tenet of the wind policy. He also was able to show that more wind penetration caused an increase of CO2 emission8.

    The real situation, however, is even worse. The way EirGrid derives its data on CO2 emission does not correlate with what is actually happening in fossil fuel power plants. Moreover the Irish data does not include some other serious factors that further undermine the desired fuel savings. There is evidence that the overall CO2 emission in Ireland can be ~20% higher than the emission calculated in the EirGrid tables, as Udo showed. (His source: ref. 14. A difference of 3% might be due to the importing of electricity. Transport losses have been accounted for.)
    We believe even Udo’s figures to be conservative. On the basis of existing data plus new information on the behavior of conventional generators when they are cycling (i.e. ramping up and down in order to compensate for the variations in wind power) we shall show how much worse the influence of adding wind electricity to the grid really is…..

    • Chris Barron says:

      So, in summary

      “Wind turbines increase fossil fuel consumption & CO2 emission.”

      There are no losers here….are there ?

      It’s good for the fossil fuel business, good for nature, and good for wind

      Bring it on
      (Lets see who runs out first 😉 )

      • gator69 says:

        Increased body counts don’t seem to be a part of Chris’s unicorn fart powered calculator. Selfish to the core.

        • Chris Barron says:

          As your joke wears thin and you even begin to get bored of it yourself I think I’ll just sit tight and wait for you to finally admit that you cannot provide proof of any problem with the finances of long term wind energy projects.

        • gator69 says:

          Do that Chris, and don’t worry about the people you kill through your insane advocacy.

          But hey, dead people are funny. Right?

          Laugh it up Pol Pot.

        • Chris Barron says:

          You have made no changes to anything today…..the poor who died of what you might call preventable circumstances have still died.

          You wasted your time campaigning to me in order to relieve your guilt when perhaps your government were the more appropriate recipients for your message

          Oh dear, a few more people died of fuel poverty and you sat there on your backside, facing your screen, tapping your keys, instead of doing something which would have genuinely helped them. What an absolute angel !

        • gator69 says:

          Really? You advocate for death, and then attack me?

          You are truly sick.

          I actually went and checked on a neighbor today, a neighbor in poverty because of Grim Reapers such as yourself.

          I truly Hope you reap what you sow.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Yes of course that is what you did today because you said you did it.

          Over here we check on our neighbours for no reason, other than they are neighbours.

          You could do more

        • gator69 says:

          I am doing more, I am exposing serial killers such as yourself, you drunken retard.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “I am doing more, I am exposing serial killers such as yourself, you drunken retard.”

          Oh right…so you agree with me in that regard – that you’re doing all the wrong things to save lives.

          Dark Angel indeed !

        • gator69 says:

          So I am the ‘dark angel’ for trying to help the poor.

          Seek help, immediately, you are suffering a stroke (or worse).

        • Chris Barron says:

          “So I am the ‘dark angel’ for trying to help the poor.”

          How do you help the poor ? By coming here and prattling on about people who you want to say don’t help the poor.

          Carry on…more poor people just starved to death and you sat there comfortably watching for an internet message from me….

          Still here are you ? Still killing the poor by inactivity ?

          Evil prevails when good people do nothing

          Returning back to a more sensible way to communicate….do you have any numerical proof that wind turbines cannot be operated without subsidies ?

        • gator69 says:

          Debating drunken fools you like is just too damn easy.

          Actually, the only autopay I have on my credit card goes to feed poor children in third world countries. Even in times when I cannot afford my own necessities, that payment is made every month without fail. I also volunteer at food pantries, and I help a disabled neighbor. I have never in my life turned down a request to help a neighbor, even convicted felons. It would never be acceptable in my world to ask the poor to finance my personal agenda.

          But then, we are polar opposites, and you would never understand.

          Grab that calculator of which you are so very proud, and figure out how many of your neighbors freeze to death, or forgo other necessities for your drunken lunacy.

          God help you, because you may be the first I would ignore.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Grab that calculator of which you are so very proud, and figure out how many of your neighbors freeze to death, or forgo other necessities for your drunken lunacy.”

          Before you send me the new one, why not work out how many I have killed, and then I’ll have something to work with

          You believe that fuel cost is the main cause of fuel poverty, yet I have shown you it is far fro the main cause but remains a small contributing factor. Your charitable efforts are recognised by me……I have helped children in Gaza, Africa, and closer to home. I donate to charities regularly and don’t walk past beggars. I don’t want to play “Who is the most charitable” because we need to recognise that it leads to ill feeling.and can never produce a coterminous outcome

          You are not correct in your assumptions about the figures which I have produced for your benefit, but EVEN IF YOU WERE…can we turn the clock back ? Is bickering over your definition of murder going to help anybody ?

          MURDER : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

          The sun is shining…my neighbours are out washing their cars….going about their daily lives…nobody died here. I feel for those for whom fuel poverty is the issue. But I need to ask you something…..why do you ignore the fact that reducing the price of electricity will not save all lives lost to fuel poverty ? You want just a half solution. Why is that ? Why not go the whole hog and try to solve the whole problem ( dwellings of poor energy efficiency, lifestyle choices, etc )

          I’m all in for fixing the whole problem myself…lets find those who are at risk, and build them dwellings suitable for a low income life and rehome them there in order to improve their quality of life, if not just save them from death by that one cause. The other taxpayers, me included, can pay. I don’t mind doing that….it will be so much more effective than bitching on the internet won’t it ?

          A good intent is not enough. Do you know which group of drivers cause more accidents than any other in the UK ? Doctors and surgeons. The people who tell us that they give their lives to helping others, the swear the hypocratic oath…..and then they *cause* more road traffic accidents than any other group of drivers.

          Anyone can say that they help this charity or that, even if they don’t , and if they do then good on them i know how it feels to do it too…….but why not put your hand in yoiur pocket and pay up ? I would.

          During the recent Scottish independence referendum debates the UK government tried to scare people in Scotland with the threat of rising taxes……a large number of Scots were more than happy to pay more taxes, where the outcome would be better schools, better hospitals, better roads and public transport, and importantly better support for the vulnerable in society.

          We are ready to pay for the whole solution already. Bitching about a wind farm is just wimpish by comparison

      • Chris Barron says:

        “God help you, because you may be the first I would ignore.”

        You and your god lack proof to support the ridiculous claims you have both made.

      • AndyG55 says:

        RELIABILITY FACTOR.. i.e. that is the percentage of the installed wind capacity that can be absolutely counted on to be there when required.

        Come on, Chris, is it 1%, 2% or closer to ZERO, like in Germany

        And that’s why you DON’T have the balls to support you hot air driven BS with any sort of action..

        You KNOW it is TOTALLY UNRELIABLE !!!!!

        • Chris Barron says:

          The graphs show that the German 40GW of installed capacity seems to produce about 20% of the rated value…8GW continuous equivalent

          Now you remember that figure of 20% don’t you ? That’s the one you said was ridiculous and yet again you have provided the proof. Thanks for saying sorry yet again.

    • Chris Barron says:

      And by the way…considering that you are here on this forum trying to defend the argument that CO2 is not an environmental problem….and then you go and try to use CO2 levels in an argument of your own, then you really need to admit how unsure you are about the whole AGW argument after all.

      I am certain, 100%, that CO2 emissions are not an issue. Why aren’t you ?

      • AndyG55 says:

        You moronic idiot,

        The whole reason wind turbines were every considered was because they were meant to REDUCE CO2

        But they DON’T reduce CO2 emissions,

        and they DON’T provide regular energy when needed.

        They are a pointless WASTE of time, a waste of the environment and of avian wildlife.

        They have ZERO purpose except to rake in subsidies. !!

        A fad, a toy that exists only to soak up taxpayer funds into the pockets of the green agenda and the scammers, like you.

        • Chris Barron says:

          And you’ve just proved yourself to have a sorry lack of facts.

          Wind has been doing work for us for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years before CO2 became a topic….but you don’t consider that

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yawn, more empty rhetoric..

          Grow some balls and back up your nonsense with action.

          All you have is wind.. from bad beans.

          Child. !

        • Chris Barron says:

          I don’t need to do anything other than reiterate the proof which I have already developed and shared with you, and which you have shown you cannot criticise.

        • AndyG55 says:

          No proof at all because you don’t believe it, so why should anyone else.

          Tell you what,

          How about we discuss Reliablity Factor.. ie the amount of time a wind turbine supplies 90% of it rated power.

          Or how about the Availability Factor. ie, the amount available on call when needed.

          Have you got any figures on those ? 😉

        • Chris Barron says:

          I do…I refer you to the graphs you just provided from notrickszone (cool name eh ?)

          A figure of 20% load factor is entirely a realistic figure, supported by your own data

  42. Gail Combs says:

    Hey gator, Here is another one. Hope the Troll reads Swedish.

    SKGS Vad kostar kraften?
    According to the above report, wind energy in Sweden costs 65% more than hydro and 50% more than nuclear power.

    So another study says Wind Power

    • Chris Barron says:

      The problem with that report, like all reports which attempt to paint a grim picture of wind, is that they assume that the wind stops blowing when the turbine reaches it’s maintenance time …they don’t figure on popping another refurbished nacelle on top at a quarter of the cost (and then some) of the first nacelle on that tower.

      The wind does not stop blowing just because a turbine reaches it’s service interval. You only pay once to connect up the distribution infrastructure and buy the land, so refurbishing costs are about the only persistent overhead

      • gator69 says:

        Similarly the wind is variable, often too weak, sometimes too strong, and even when it is just right, there may be no demand for that surge of power. Germany has 23,000 wind turbines – they produce an average of about 17% of their installed capacity; on some days, they harvest nothing except subsidies (and they are good at that).

        And crucially, both wind and solar energy are very dilute, so large areas of land are required to collect significant energy and to build the spider-web of roads and transmission lines required to connect to each other and to the grid. Solar panels rob green plants underneath of their sunlight. Wind turbines annoy neighbours with their noise, devalue their properties and slice up eagles, bats and migrating birds. These are very significant human and environmental costs never mentioned by green energy disciples and promoters.

        No amount of research can change the key intermittent and dilute nature of green energy. We should stop wasting ever-increasing amounts of money on pointless research.

        Even if we invented magic batteries (small with massive capacity, low cost, no energy losses and everlasting life), the green energy plants would still need to spend over 60% of the energy they generate to charge the batteries in order to produce 24/7 power.

        There are places when green energy is appropriate and useful, and people should be free to use it at their own expense. But for grid power, it is not fit-for-purpose.

        All of this explains why Green Germany is now using more coal than it did in 2009 and its power supply is more expensive and less reliable.

        Guess you unicorn fart powered calculator missed that. 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          You’ve got so lazy not helping the poor that you have found the time to misquote another lot of random data…..well done you

          “Even if we invented magic batteries (small with massive capacity, low cost, no energy losses and everlasting life), the green energy plants would still need to spend over 60% of the energy they generate to charge the batteries in order to produce 24/7 power.”

          There is not one single calculation provided to support this assertion…in fact, there appears to be very few calculations and a lack of recognition for the proper sources.

          Like I say, you don’t care about facts, and now you are about to reply to me instead of doing something to save the poor, you don’t care about the poor either

        • gator69 says:

          How about I send you a functioning calculator, Prince of Lies? 😆

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Gail! Looks like we have another ‘book burner’ on our hands. 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          “How about I send you a functioning calculator, Prince of Lies? :lol:”

          Go ahead ! 🙂

          Do you need any help with working out how to send something through the post ? If so, let me know

      • Gail Combs says:

        The wind DOES stop BLOWING. That is the whole problem it is not constant.

        …statistics on Germany’s electricity sector for the whole of 2012 are now in, and when you look beyond the cherry-picked hype, the results are dismal and disquieting. Despite massive construction of new capacity, electricity output from renewables, especially from wind and solar, grew at a sluggish rate. Germany is indeed avoiding blackouts—by opening new coal- and gas-fired plants. Renewable electricity is proving so unreliable and chaotic that it is starting to undermine the stability of the European grid and provoke international incidents. The spiraling cost of the renewables surge has sparked a backlash, including government proposals to slash subsidies and deployment rates. Worst of all, the Energiewende made no progress at all in clearing the German grid of fossil fuels or abating greenhouse emissions….

        Eventually someone will bring a World Trade Organization anti-dumping case against the Energiewende; Poland and the Czech Republic are already threatening to block transmission from Germany to prevent wind power surges from crashing their grids.

        Although renewables subsidies may wreck the margins of conventional power plants, they won’t necessarily cut emissions. Utilities don’t like to make way for intermittent renewable surges by turning off coal, nuclear, and combined-cycle gas plants; firing up the boilers after a shut-down takes time and wastes fuel and money, and they will need those generators back on line, quickly, when wind and solar cut out. To cope with the oversupply during surges, increasingly they are resorting to “negative pricing”—which simply means that utilities pay customers to waste renewable electricity instead of using it to abate greenhouse gases. And as subsidized and even “negative” renewables prices push conventional plants into the red, the subsidy regime will need to expand to embrace fossil fuels, the necessary back-up for intermittent generators in the absence of nuclear. “Capacity markets” that pay fossil-fueled plants to remain on standby are now being debated in Germany and France….

        The other problem is energy density and the higher above sea level the less air pressure.

        Germans grow skeptical over shift to renewables

        ….Germany’s green energy revolution appears to be losing steam. Accelerated in 2011 by the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan, the German government’s shift in energy policy is now facing mounting resistance.

        Rising costs undermine support…

        ….From a natural science point of view, the change towards green energy was an absurd undertaking, said physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke.

        Noting that renewables yield less energy than fossil fuels, he commented to DW on differing amounts of energy in various sources: “You can hold out your hand in a storm, but not put it into a furnace.”

        Wind does not have a high-enough energy density, he added, which would make it necessary to build a huge number of wind farms to cover Germany’s rising or at least stable energy needs in future.

        Moreover, the costs of secondary effects such as greater land use and falling property prices near wind farms has not yet been calculated.

        What also needs to be added to the bill, Lüdecke said, is the cost of building sufficient grid capacity to transport electricity from Germany’s wind-rich coastal areas to the industrial zones in the south of the country. Lüdecke thinks building out the new energy grid will make the costs explode….

        • Chris Barron says:

          One way or the other some of that is probably true.

          All together it is lacking in facts.

          The internet is one of the worlds largest consumers of electricity…driving the cost of electricity higher as a result of the demand. More poor people died just because you stayed to read this and respond to this comment,and i think that’s a big shame

  43. Gail Combs says:

    Chris The Wind Barron says:
    ….”they don’t figure on popping another refurbished nacelle on top at a quarter of the cost”…

    And he wonders why we suspect he is connected to the Renewable Energy Programs of the Rhead Group or a similar group.

    • Chris Barron says:

      Well, as there is a lack of interesting substantiated facts in the waves of opinion and hype which makes this site so special and unscientific…I’m heading off to bed, but you still have work to do…you need to find pages and pages of unrelated unsupported opinion in the first instance, plus a few photos which you think dramatically show something to support something else which you think you’ve been saying all along

      Remember, without me there would be fewer dead people because i kept you here, preventing you from going out and helping people

      • gator69 says:

        Sleep it off Chris. In the morning look into Haldol or maybe some of these…

        Naltrexone and Acamprosate, classified as opioid antagonists, help to reduce the craving feeling for alcohol in a recovering alcoholic, and also serve to alleviate some of the effects of alcohol on a person’s system.

        Naltrexone (ReVia, Vivitrol)
        This anti-craving drug is a short-term use drug for individuals with serious alcoholism. There are two forms of this drug that can be administered: Vivitrol is injected once a month, and ReVia is a pill that is taken once daily.

        There are some temporary side effects that can be associated with naltrexone, including nausea, headaches, feelings of fatigue, and pain in the stomach area. In rare cases, a high dosage of this drug can increase the risk for liver damage. It is not recommended that naltrexone be prescribed to a patient that has recently used other narcotic substances.

        The injection Vivitrol is often prescribed in lieu of the pill form because many individuals find it hard to remember to take the pill each day. Sometimes there might be an infection or an abscess at the injection area, and patients are advised to report any bruising, swelling or pain to their doctors.

        In some cases this drug does not deliver the desired effect. Some research attributes this to specific genes found in some patients that may not be in others. Naltrexone is often used along with the drug acamprosate, which is another anti-craving drug. There is currently research being conducted to measure the results of using the two drugs in conjunction with each other.

        Acamprosate (Campral)
        Antabuse is an aversion medication that makes one sick when they consume alcohol.
        This anti-craving drug causes the brain to inhibit a neurotransmitter called gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). This causes the brain to enter into a more relaxed state and also serves to reduce cravings for alcohol. Several studies have been conducted with proven results that acamprosate successfully causes an individual to have the desire to drink less frequently. When prescribed along with psychotherapy, it has a proven effectiveness to enable patients to take steps to better their lives. It has proven effective even in individuals that have been diagnosed with severe alcoholism.

        Common side effects associated with the use of acamprosate include headaches and diarrhoea. More severe side effects include problems with memory functions. It is recommended that people who have any problems with their kidneys take caution when on the drug. Acamprosate is also often prescribed in conjunction with other drugs such as naltrexone, another anti-craving drug, and disulfiram, which is classified as an aversion drug.

        Anti-Addiction Medication That Causes Aversion to Alcohol

        Disulfiram (Antabuse)*
        Another type of drug that may be prescribed to inhibit alcohol use is Disulfiram, which is classified as an aversion drug. This drug causes the user to experience uncomfortable side effects when drinking, yet nothing that is ultimately harmful. The drug is meant to condition the mind and body to develop an aversion to alcohol. Some of the side effects a patient might experience when using the drug and having a drink include feeling nausea, headaches, hot sweats, and vomiting. As little as half a drink is all that is needed for the side effects to occur, and they may last up to two hours.

        Typically, patients only require one dose taken every 1-2 weeks. There is a dangerous warning regarding an overdose of the drug, which could cause anything from chest pain and low blood pressure to the death of the patient. While taking this drug, it is important for the patient to have a support system in place through friends and family, or buddies in support groups that can ensure the drug is being taken regularly.

        I am just trying to help another neighbor.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Just another useless cut and paste……

          You can at least credit the source…which I note you probably know quite well…do you support a recovering alcoholic…are you one yourself ? Staring at wind turbines whilst drunk must make you feel quite sick and explains why you probably don’t like that

          Your possible source –

          Others will cut and paste it too….just like they do with anti wind fearmongering nonsense

        • AndyG55 says:

          RELIABILITY FACTOR.. i.e. that is the percentage of the installed wind capacity that can be absolutely counted on to be there when required.

          Come on, Chris, is it 1%, 2% or closer to ZERO, like in Germany

          And that’s why you DON’T have the balls to support you hot air driven BS with any sort of action..

          You KNOW it is TOTALLY UNRELIABLE !!!!!

        • Chris Barron says:

          What your graphs in the link prove beyond reasonable doubt, is that a figure of 20% load factor is entirely reasonable.
          According to your source Germany has 40GW of installed wind, 20% of which is 8GW….which would appear to be just what your graphs are telling us.

          You remember the 20% figure don’t you….that is the figure which you said was laughable….and now thanks to you we know that it is true.

          I don’t expect there’ll be an apology

        • AndyG55 says:

          What was that Reliability Factor again?

          No ?…. no answer… come on Cwiss, you wuss.

        • AndyG55 says:

          A car with a 20% capacity factor is well and truly a LEMON !!

        • Chris Barron says:

          “A car with a 20% capacity factor is well and truly a LEMON !!”

          My car has a peak output of 150HP…I use about 20HP to cruise at 60mph, which is a load factor of about 15%. The car is not a lemon. There are many times I want to use peak output but cannot due to traffic and 15% is perfectly adequate.

        • AndyG55 says:

          But its pretty pointless when, if you want to put the accelerator down, you only have a 1% – 2% chance of getting any response.

          That is a LEMON !!

        • Chris Barron says:

          “But its pretty pointless when, if you want to put the accelerator down, you only have a 1% – 2% chance of getting any response.

          That is a LEMON !!”

          Then i take the public transport…It’s good to have lots of options

          Can I take the trouble to mention how great it is to see you finally accept that a
          20% is a perfectly reasonable figure to use for load factor when calculating the profits which wind turbines produce, it marks a slow returning to the senses for you.

          Now all we need to do is have you agree to use the figure of 10 years for the life expectancy of a wind turbine when making an average profit calculation and I’ll be happy to sign you off as someone who is able to do maths

      • AndyG55 says:

        The graph shows wind provided basically ZERO for a long period of time.


        You KNOW that , that’s why you are running and hiding, squirming and weaselling,
        refusing to test your mis-placed belief in wind energy, all the time KNOWING that you are TOTALLY RELIANT on fossil fuel energy and that wind energy can never be relied upon for anything.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Yet again you provide proof that you do not read anything I write in response to your allegations

          I have never said that wind can provide 100% electricity….ever….and that is true

          I have also never heard you say that coal and gas can provide 100% of our electricity, and unfortunately for you that is true too.

          “The graph shows wind provided basically ZERO for a long period of time.”

          ‘Basically zero’ and ‘long period of time’ are generalisations which you don’t seem to think need any form of quanitfication

          There were eleven periods of very low output in the time period covered by the graphs….among periods which included maximum wind output at peak demand time. (conclusively disproving the argument that wind is unlikely to produce peak output at peak demand)

  44. Gail Combs says:

    Chris The Wind Barron says: “….Well, as there is a lack of interesting substantiated facts in the waves of opinion and hype which makes this site so special and unscientific…”


    If you want FACTS go BUY the book I first posted days ago.

    Charles Opalek PE has a Mechanical Engineering degree and has been practicing engineering since 1965. In 1974, he obtained his first Professional Engineering license.

    He did the analysis and wrote the book WIND POWER FRAUD: WHY WIND WON’T WORK You want the NUMBERS? Go BUY the DAMN BOOK! Then get back to us with a point by point DOCUMENTED by fact rebuttal.

    Last night I also linked to studies/news articles of studies done in Sweden, SKGS Vad kostar kraften? Germany Angela Merkel’s Vice Chancellor Stuns, Declares Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ To Be on ‘The Verge Of Failure’! and Holland Electricity in The Netherlands

    All say Wind Power is not fit for purpose.

    Want another one? Here is one from the USA:

    Alternative Energy Wind Power?
    What are the downsides to wind generated power? There are several.
    Wind power tends to drop when you most need it.

    During the last few cold winters in the*** U. K. wind power generation dropped to very low levels during the coldest days. This happens everywhere. Wind power cannot be depended on to supply heating electricity when it is most needed. It must be remembered that all heating systems require some electricity to move the heat within the system. In California, wind power generation has a definite daily pattern, low in the morning and ramping up during the afternoon. But this pattern doesn’t happen every day. See ***A Grid Manager’s Nightmare. To provide power when the wind dies, a grid manager must have an equivalent amount of other generation available, usually fossil fueled, or the lights will go out. The U. K. solves this problem by importing nuclear power from France. Denmark imports hydroelectric power from the rest of Scandinavia. If all the euro-zone countries continue to expand wind power, there will come a point where sufficient backup power will no longer be available. [France is abandoning nuclear which will be a real OH SHIT! for the EU]

    In California, a *** report [ publication] by KEMA Inc. written in June 2010, states:

    Researchers concluded that accommodating 33 percent renewables generation by 2020 will require major alterations to system operations. They also noted that California may need between 3,000 to 5,000 or more megawatts (MW) of conventional (fossil-fuel-powered or hydroelectric) generation to meet load and planning reserve margin requirements.

    Wind turbines are dangerous
    ………….The recommended distance to occupied housing due to blade throw, noise, and shadow flicker from blade rotation through sunlight, is 2 km. Shadow flicker can trigger epilepsy in sensitive individuals.

    There have also been many fatal accidents during the transportation and construction process. Erecting a large wind turbine requires moving very long loads on the highways, and using very large cranes to erect the components. Both processes are hazardous. There have been a total of at least 78 people killed in the wind industry as of March 31st of 2011.

    Fire is a hazard for wind turbines
    …..Eric Rosenbloom wrote an excellent paper in 2006 that details much of the danger from wind turbines. See his paper *** here. [ (wwwdot)]

    <b.What to do when the turbines wear out?

    The usual annual funds planned for maintenance and repair for a wind farm is 4 or 5% of the cost of installed equipment. The planned life is usually 20 to 30 years. This should be thought of as the half-life of a wind farm. In this period, half of the turbines will have catastrophically failed. Usually in older wind farms, after half have failed, the others are decommissioned and eventually abandoned. If the permitting agreements have not called for removal, old wind farms are often just abandoned by owners. This is happening in Hawaii and California as this is written. [So much for Chris The Wind Barron’s claim that the Wind Turbines are repaired. REAL WORLD evidence shows other wise]

    The economics of wind power, or how do we make money on this?

    In Texas and Denmark, wind farm operators often pay the grid operators to take their generated power. They can do this because the subsidies they receive from the government allow a small profit…..

    Wind power is a huge scam. There is no other way to describe it. If it were not for subsidies, no one in their right mind would build a wind farm. To learn more, this author recommends following the links in this article for as long as your nausea level will allow.

    *** Links within the article

    • Chris Barron says:

      [So much for Chris The Wind Barron’s claim that the Wind Turbines are repaired. REAL WORLD evidence shows other wise]

      Would you accept that the existence of large numbers of companies which specialise in refurbishing wind turbines for reuse, is proof that what you just said was a sweeping statement, unsupported by maths

      Or do people spend large sums of money on building refurbishment facilities just for fun ? Who has money to do that sort of thing ?

    • Chris Barron says:

      From Opalek’s page

      “If you:
      suspect that wind power isn’t all that it is crapped up to be –
      are suspicious with all the seemingly endless positive hype surrounding wind power –
      wonder why no one has anything negative to say about wind power –
      need a complete source of information to refute all the claims about wind power –
      Then Wind Power Fraud is the book for you.”

      So his suggestion to anyone who thinks wind is a fraud is not to become active…he isn’t suggesting that anyone should lobby the government….he is suggesting that you buy his book……..

  45. David A says:

    Gail, here is the likely response to you by Mr. Barron. (We know this, because he already said it.)

    “One way or the other some of that is probably true.
    All together it is lacking in facts.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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