The Beauty Of Green, Unreliable, Expensive, Environmentally Destructive Energy

President Obama has pledged to run the US off green energy.

redkite

obama-pledge

About stevengoddard

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

102 Responses to The Beauty Of Green, Unreliable, Expensive, Environmentally Destructive Energy

  1. Chris Barron says:

    He has also pledged to keep the price of coal down, so no need to worry

    • Shutting down coal powered electricity will keep the lights and heat off for many poor people.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Obummer wants the price of coal down so China can buy US coal and coal mines on the cheap to provide cheap energy for the elite owned factories in China. —- See Chris you just have to Follow The Money.

      As U.S. taps shale gas, Chinese firms have sights on its coal mines

      ….The preferred partners include China’s state-owned energy majors such as Shenhua Group and China National Coal Group. On May 7, Guizhou Guochuang Energy Holding Group said it had raised 3.9 billion yuan ($616 million) in a private placement to be used mainly to acquire and develop Triple H Coal Company, making it the first Chinese company to invest in coal in America….

      A top Shenhua executive said that coal mines in Tennessee were attracting a lot of attention from investors. “Shenhua is also following them with interest,” a China Coal executive said, adding that his company was focused on coal resources abroad, including in the United States. “China Coal doesn’t lack funds. When we find the proper target, we’ll certainly spend money on it.”…

      From Mother Jones: Why Big Coal’s Export Terminals Could be Even Worse Than the Keystone XL Pipeline: Proposed Northwest coal ports could have a bigger climate impact—with local pollution to boot.

      Who buys our coal?
      Canada, Mexico, and lots of European countries buy American coal, but our biggest single customer is China, which last year purchased 7.8 million tons from us. The People’s Republic already accounts for almost half of the world’s coal consumption, and demand continues to skyrocket for cheap coal-fired electricity to power its growing industrial parks and mega-cities….

      Coal Gross Exports.

      In order to compete in China, the US coal industry is reorienting itself toward the West Coast. The nation’s two largest coal companies, Peabody Energy and Arch Coal, want to strip-mine vast reserves in Wyoming and Montana’s Powder River Basin, then ship the coal by rail to ports in Oregon and Washington, where it would be loaded on cargo ships bound for China. But the ports lack the capacity to move that amount of coal cargo. In 2011, just 7 million of the nation’s 107 million tons of coal exports left the country via Pacific Ocean ports. The coal companies want to change that by building the following new export terminals:

      • Chris Barron says:

        I think if we’re honest with ourselves we know that the price of coal has nothing to do with Obama himself…he’s merely the public facade of industry led decisions

    • I love it… ISIS inspired Windmills!!

      Birds of Prey flying through Wind Farms are like Christians in a boat full o’ Muslims heading to Italy !!

  2. Chris Barron says:

    Some news for subsidy students
    http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=3710&doc_id=277266&itc=dn_analysis_element&cid=nl.dn14.20150421&dfpPParams=ind_184,industry_auto,industry_gov,kw_33,aid_277266&dfpLayout=blog

    Okay it hasn’t happened, but indications are good for the letting go of the EV business into purely public owned markets without subsidies.

    The same will be true of wind in time…I would expect to see a subsidy reduction for all wind in 10 years as it manages to gain it’s projected returns from reinvestment

    • Neal S says:

      I wonder why there are fewer vertical axis windmills. Perhaps Chris could explain what the advantages of these are and why they are not more common despite those advantages.

      • Chris Barron says:

        I guess if you wanted to know that it would be better if you just popped that into the clue box on Google rather than wait for a reply from me……from memory vertical axis turbines tend to (but not always) have slightly lower efficiency, and it’s more difficult to scale a VAWT to the same sizes as horizontal rotor designs for MW sized units.

        Small scale VAWT’s can work in lower wind speeds, and mounted lower to the ground, but a a low ground turbine of MW capacity would have to reach up as high as existing HAWT and that means a highly flexible rotor cage design would need to be employed….currently the flexion in a HAWT is limited to usually the blades.

        Take a VAWT and tip it over horizontally and then find a way to change it’s height above ground so that it was always in the fastest flowing slice of wind, and you then have a better solution

        That’s roughly the basis of the high altitude wind turbine designs, where gas balloons, kites or some other method is used to hold the turbine in the high altitude wind flows….a lot of research is ongoing regarding capturing the power in the jetstream. Costs are high, but if fossil fuels rise in price as expected it all becomes feasible in the not too distant future

        • Anthony S says:

          I thought the disadvantage of VAWTs was that they aren’t self starting, and require starter motors which cut into overall efficiency big time with inconsistent winds.

        • Barbara says:

          The most recent info I have had for wind machines in general is that worldwide the average energy production is about 25% of faceplate number.

        • AndyG55 says:

          UK wind, currently providing 0.5GW out of 12GW installed.

          Well done guys ! 😉

        • Chris Barron says:

          Anthony S says “I thought the disadvantage of VAWTs was that they aren’t self starting, and require starter motors which cut into overall efficiency big time with inconsistent winds.”

          Where ever did you read that ? Just curious. Its not what experience tells me….ever seen a VAWT made of two halves of an oil drum offset to one another ? They self start

          Large VAWTs self start and self regulate too
          http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/02/vertical-axis-wind-turbine-is-self-starting-and-self-regulating-47509

          Even the more unusual designs seem to run up by themselves

          And when installed as larger arrays you get more of a ‘slicer-dicer’ action
          which will spit out shredded sparrow and starling to attract raptors which will then increase in number due to the availability of food

        • Chris Barron says:

          Barbara “The most recent info I have had for wind machines in general is that worldwide the average energy production is about 25% of faceplate number.”

          I have only ever used that number in my calculations, but i was regularly called a liar for doing so……hope you have better luck !

      • Chris Barron says:

        Anthony…here’s probably the lowest wind speed VAWT…mounted at ground level (unheard of usually) self starting , hundreds of watts for a low wind speed. At about 1.55 the areodynamics/ vortex imaging explains the principle of operation

      • AndyG55 says:

        UK wind currently at 3.5% of nameplate..

        UNRELIABLITY factor …… probably around 3-4% of nameplate

        That ALL you can rely on for most of the time.

    • Lance says:

      The recurring theme in your article is “subsidy”. Taxpayers are funding the losing economics of EVs. That is the only way EVs “work” because it isn’t a viable product. “The same will be true of wind in time..” Really? When is that? When wind goes over 30% capacity factor? When more dams are built for pumped hydro to take out the peaks and troughs? Your understanding of free markets, subsidies, backup generation, reliability, dispatchability, and reality are seriously flawed. Tell ya what. Why not solve all those issues and then bring it to the table?

  3. Marsh says:

    President Obama has repeatedly said we should look to Spain and Germany for the lead on renewable energy policy. He is right, “” but not in the way he thinks “” !!

    Germany and Spain are waking up to the inevitable truth about renewable energy, especially offshore wind. They are now realizing the projects cannot survive without subsidies and that they make energy much more expensive to households and businesses. In an age of austerity, they are a luxury even Germany, Europe’s economic powerhouse, cannot fully afford any more.
    ( America should learn from Europe on wind power: Column – Iain Murray )

    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. Green Energy and base load power are not even on the same page ; Coal will be “more reliable” and “cost effective” for decades to come !

    There is a correlation with Green Energy and CAGW ” but not in the way many think ” the Green
    Data is tampered with – to match the philosophy, for political support & attract funding.

    • Barbara says:

      Thank you, Marsh, for telling it like it is. I was reading recently that solar and wind power are so useless that the debate is about whether they achieve any reduction of carbon dioxide at all. If it weren’t for fossil fuels there wouldn’t be enough energy to build them in the first place. Imagine trying to make steel with solar power! For every watt of power actually generated, 60% of it is needed/required totally, absolutely 24/7 the year around.
      Germany and Denmark would often be in the dark except for France’s nuclear and Norway’s/Sweden’s hydro. Worldwide renewables now are about 0.04% of energy supply; prediction is that by 2040, that will have risen to 2.2%. I love fossil fuels and a greener planet. Recommend Alex Epstein’s book–The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

      • Lance says:

        EU climate/energy policy is bankrupting the EU. Go figure.

        http://www.globalwarming.org/2014/12/02/eu-climate-policy-boomerangs-subsidizes-coal-gas/

        “The EU’s unilateral climate policy is absurd: first consumers are forced to pay ever increasing subsidies for costly wind and solar energy; secondly they are asked to subsidize nuclear energy too; then, thirdly, they are forced to pay increasingly uneconomic coal and gas plants to back up power needed by intermittent wind and solar energy; fourthly, consumers are additionally hit by multi-billion subsidies that become necessary to upgrade the national grids; fifthly, the cost of power is made even more expensive by adding a unilateral Emissions Trading Scheme. Finally, because Europe has created such a foolish scheme that is crippling its heavy industries, consumers are forced to pay even more billions in subsidizing almost the entire manufacturing sector.”

        Isn’t economic, social, cultural, and actual, suicide an illogical act?

    • Lance says:

      Yes, Marsh, absolutely correct. Reality is teaching Germany, Spain, and Denmark, about real economics.

      Spain: http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

      Denmark: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/opinion_something_rotten/

      Germany: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/germany/Germany_Study_-_FINAL.pdf

      Germany, via political subsidy, has inverted reality to the point that no one is willing to finance a coal plant, even thought their grid is about to fail. Read it and weep:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2015/04/thethe-german-electricity-crisis-twice-the-price-but-everyones-going-broke/#more-41988

      • Marsh says:

        In effect ; this should be a ” heads up ” for other Countries to learn what doesn’t work !
        Even some States of the USA have banned private investment in Wind Farms so it’s not just heads of Government ; it’s surprising Obama could be so naive and out of touch.
        The German electricity crisis – twice the price, but everyone’s going broke…
        ” When the Germans mess something up, they do it properly ” (for all to witness & learn)!
        Yea , it’s a good article Lance…

  4. gator69 says:

    This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s latest wind turbines… and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#ixzz3Xnu93Gg1 ;

    • Chris Barron says:

      Prior to making magnets for wind turbines (the latest largest turbines have no permanent magnets anyway) that same plant made magnets which fit inside everybody’s computer hard drives…..headphones for our iPods…fans in our ari conditioning units…even some starter motors in our cars

      But besides that, they also made the magnets which went inside coal fired power stations, in the motors driving the conveyors, the computers again…and so on.

      Neodymium magnets are also commonly used in the hard drives of computers, in telephonic applications, in television and video applications and for chip detectors.
      Neodymium magnets are also very popular in the manufacturing of generators. Generally the stronger the magnet the better the generator.
      Medicine & Health Uses Of Neodymium Magnets

      Neodymium magnets are very popularly used for magnetic therapy to help alleviate the symptoms and relieve pain caused by health problems like arthritis. They have high healing ability and often called healing magnets as well.
      NASA uses Neodymium magnets for the purpose of maintaining muscle tone in astronauts during space flights.
      Neodymium magnets are used in MRI scanning machines.

      • gator69 says:

        Prior to making magnets for wind turbines (the latest largest turbines have no permanent magnets anyway)

        So they musy be replaced on a regular basis?

        Neodymium Magnets were not even discovered until 1982, when GM disvered the Nd2Fe14B compound.

        Great view though! If only we had a better more efficient meanns of producing power…

        • Chris Barron says:

          “So they musy be replaced on a regular basis?”

          Harhar….
          The use electromagnets

        • Chris Barron says:

          …and that is identical to the generators in coal and gas fired plants now

        • gator69 says:

          An electromagnet is a type of magnet in which the magnetic field is produced by an electric current. The magnetic field disappears when the current is turned off.

          https://www.google.com/#q=electromagnets&spell=1

          Perpetual motion machines! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          From the Daily Wail article “the region has more than 90 per cent of the world’s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets ”

          The same region and factories provides the majority of rare earths in the global supply chain
          ““For example a smart phone has 8 different rare earths in it. Everything from the material used in its memory to the red coloured pixels of its screen and the polish used on its glass. , ”

          There really no is escaping the fact that western modern life has caused this disaster is there Gator

          I’ll see you your wide angle view…and raise you a wind farm built in the same city http://global.camcoglobal.com/honitonphase2.html

        • gator69 says:

          Gee, if only we had another, more efficient option….

        • rah says:

          Yep the GM plant that made those batteries was here in Anderson, IN. It was called ‘Magnaquench’ and I did flame sprayed abrasion resistant plates that were 6″ thick for them. The Chinese bought it and now that same facility is used for making plastic furniture and stuff.

    • Chris Barron says:

      As usual…you can always rely on the Daily Wail for a piece of nonsense to lighten up your day

      one of the most polluted places on earth is around this copper smelting operation….the copper has been used in our coal and gas power generating plants…..right down to household wiring level….shame on all of us

      • gator69 says:

        I’ll see your carefully cropped photo, and raise you a wide angle shot…

        • Chris Barron says:

          I’ll see you your wide angle view…and raise you a wind farm built in the same city http://global.camcoglobal.com/honitonphase2.html

        • gator69 says:

          Gee, if only we had another, more efficient option….

        • Chris Barron says:

          Well…look…just as an idea….why not use coal….and then hide the environmental damage inside the body of the people who work with it ?

          https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.HtL45Zi2LV903bmlkHfqMQ&pid=15.1&P=0

          And if you keep people out of the way they’ll notice the groundwater pollution

          Just as long as you don’t get yet another coal sludge spill in Kentucky

        • gator69 says:

          Can you spot the strip mine here?

        • gator69 says:

          What about here, see any mining?

        • Chris Barron says:

          If that’s the windfarm in Batou then it’s just over on the left….but as they’re installing asynchronous turbines they don’t use permanent magnets.

          Who doesn’t love a windmill….

        • gator69 says:

          For starters, birds, especially birds like this. Then there are lovers of birds like me, and lovers of unspoiled scenery, like me.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “For starters, birds, especially birds like this. Then there are lovers of birds like me, and lovers of unspoiled scenery, like me.”

          It’s not up to me but i suspect that as 80% of the worlds population lives in cities, the power hungry iPad, plasma screen, smartphone internet addicted actually care much less than you.

          That’s just a sneaking suspicion with no figures to back it up though, I could be wrong there

        • gator69 says:

          They don’t need bird shredders for the power hungry iPad, plasma screen, smartphone internet.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Strip mine pollution runoff into the Ohio River. The polluted stream would, I imagine contain no fish…The birds which used the stream for feeding either also died of pollution through consumption or had to move to other environs

        • gator69 says:

          That is an accident, this isn’t…

        • Chris Barron says:

          Also an accident.

          Or did the bird try to commit suicide ? We will never know

        • gator69 says:

          No, this is not an accident, it is an involuntary sacrifice, like those humans that government mandated wind energy kills every year.

          We covered this already.

          You never did tell me how many humans you are willing to sacrifice against their will.

          How many killer?

        • Chris Barron says:

          “They don’t need bird shredders for the power hungry iPad, plasma screen, smartphone internet.”

          Or fish farmers….

        • gator69 says:

          Fishermen and miners volunteer, those that your government kills with wind mandates do not volunteer.

          We covered this already.

          You never did tell me how many humans you are willing to sacrifice against their will.

          How many killer?

  5. Chris Barron says:

    Is that the land above the mine which suffered a collapse, killing so many healthy men ?
    That was a real tragedy

    • gator69 says:

      No Dumb Dumb, it isn’t.

      • Chris Barron says:

        I was only asking…it looked a little bit like the Upper Big Branch Mine in Virginia where 29 good healthy men gave their lives in a mine disaster on 5th April 2010

        • gator69 says:

          Hmmm, I don’t even see mining making the top ten. Shouldn’t we stop these activities first?

        • Chris Barron says:

          Of course we could do that…but how many Megawatts of electricity do those occupations contribute towards the big picture?

        • gator69 says:

          😆

          You are going to bring up megawatt production while defending bird shreders? 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          You brought up fishermen in relation to coal production 🙂

        • gator69 says:

          You brought up industry related deaths, and I put them into perspective, Dumb Dumb.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Into perspective with unrelated industries unfortunately

        • gator69 says:

          In perspective of voluntary sacrifice versus involuntary sacrifice.

          We covered this already.

          You never did tell me how many humans you are willing to sacrifice against their will.

          How many killer?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Chris, Did you ever answer my question..

          What percentage of nameplate can wind turbines guarantee to deliver 95% of the time?

          In the UK its been below 1 GW out of 12GW installed for most of the last 24 hours.

          UNRELIABLE !

        • AndyG55 says:

          The sooner they get rid of subsidies, rabid feed-in tariffs and preferential treatment and go to a contract to supply system, the sooner the world will be rid of this junk !!

        • Chris Barron says:

          “You never did tell me how many humans you are willing to sacrifice against their will.”

          When you show the number of people who die from not being able to afford to heat their home we can discuss it.

          You posted a figure for injury related industrial deaths. Black lung disease is not an injury related death statistic according to official figures….the very reason it is kept out of official figures is to hide the terrible toll death toll of coal mining disease

          A work related disease is not thought of as an industrial injury

          Your assertion that miners give their lives voluntarily suggests you don’t know much about miners. They know there is a risk, they assume the risk factors and aspects are monitored and managed by the mine managers.

          There is no voice screaming more loudly about the need for reform in the mining industry than the miners themselves and to my knowledge there has never been a miner who said they would rather die of pneumoconiosis than not go down the mine to dig for coal. Ergo there is nothing voluntary about their death…Their choice is a bleak one….die of CWP or fail to support your family.

        • gator69 says:

          The killer coldly spews: When you show the number of people who die from not being able to afford to heat their home we can discuss it.

          First of all, I started this discussion over UK deaths, since that is your homeland, and your endorsement directly effects only the UK. You keep throwing up worldwide figures on coal, which is a false argument, as anyone knows the Chinese coal industry work force is practically a slave colony, with little protection.

          Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day.
          Yet the latest Office of National Statistics figures show that there were 25,700 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in winter 2010.
          Meanwhile the latest WHO research suggests that 30 to 40 per cent of the excess winter deaths can be attributed to fuel poverty.

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fuel-poverty-deaths-three-times-higher-than-government-estimates-7462426.html

          So there is the raw number from 2010 or before. That answers your question, but let’s figure out how many wind kills.

          This chart shows fuel poverty households doubling from 2004 to 2009.

          One of the major factors behind increasing fuel poverty in the UK is government policies instituted to meet carbon stabilization targets, the most aggressive in the world.

          The average annual bill for a customer using electricity and natural gas is about 6 percent of median household income now, up from 3.3 percent in 2004. Since 2004, the cost of energy in the UK increased by 117 percent–more than six times faster than UK household income (which only increased by 18 percent since 2004). If these trends continue, energy’s share of median household income in the UK will reach 7.4 percent by 2013, 8.2 percent in 2014, and 10 percent in 2015.

          And with these cost increases, the death toll keeps rising. So a doubling from 2004 to 2009, and 7800 deaths in 2010, means that a conservative estimate puts government mandated renewables at about 3500+ per year, 5 years ago. And again, the figures are rising.

          This chart breaks down renewables by type, and wind is 67% of the problem.

          https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/MoI-MAx-eijGUnltrTXdQtt8QNSA1TWlUxCWD9qGcrv2ALYlkJAMsWlYvo6J0jQhGjCXYsKkc0CLVYKxqO-QuFt92J-0Vs-ulpgSRCsVWcJgQ_69B8Q7rgBb8M8b9qAc3NAXIP0

          When it comes to wind and solar power, onshore wind power is the most effective form of renewable energy in terms of capital cost. It only costs approximately 9 times as much as conventional power generation. On average across Europe, the capacity utilization is about 23%.

          Offshore wind power is about 17 times more expensive to install, but its increased capacity factors mean that it should be significantly more productive than onshore installations. Nonetheless, in addition to the significant additional capital costs, offshore wind power appears to have major problems with costlier long term maintenance and questionable reliability.

          http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/08/analysis-shows-wind-and-solar-power-in-europe-is-on-average-16-times-more-expensive-than-gas-fired-power/#sthash.WIriuIi7.dpuf

          So with wind being overall the most expensive of renewables, 67% of 3500 is 2345 involuntary and innocent humans sacrificed in 2010, and again, he numbers keep rising. But just to be fair, let’s call it 2000 per year killer.

          The killer claims, without citation: You posted a figure for injury related industrial deaths. Black lung disease is not an injury related death statistic according to official figures….the very reason it is kept out of official figures is to hide the terrible toll death toll of coal mining disease. A work related disease is not thought of as an industrial injury

          That’s not what the law says, so you will need to prove that…

          Illnesses created by the work environment, like medical conditions caused by exposure to chemicals, are also compensable. In general, any injury or illness that requires the worker to see a doctor or that results in disability or death qualifies for workers’ compensation benefits. A doctor must be able to verify that there is objective medical evidence showing that an injury or disease exists and that work exposure was the major cause.

          http://www.segarlaw.com/questions/

          The killer spews: Your assertion that miners give their lives voluntarily suggests you don’t know much about miners. They know there is a risk, they assume the risk factors and aspects are monitored and managed by the mine managers.

          I don’t think these 2000 people want to lose their jobs, as it is not a strike over work conditions that is threatening to close the mines. Obviously these 2000 people want to work at the mine.

          Two of Britain’s three remaining deep pit coal mines face closure in the next 18 months with the loss of more than 1,300 jobs under plans announced by the country’s largest coal producer.
          UK Coal is consulting on plans to shut Kellingley in Yorkshire, which employs 700 people, and Thoresby in Nottinghamshire, which employs 600.
          It will leave employee-owned Hatfield colliery in South Yorkshire as Britain’s last remaining deep pit mine.
          Jobs are also likely to go at UK Coal’s head office in Doncaster, South Yorkshire.
          It will mean the majority of the 2,000 people employed by UK Coal – which also operates six surface sites – facing a bleak future, just nine months after it was rescued from administration.

          http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/02/uks-last-deep-pit-coal-mines-threatened-with-closure

          The killer spews: There is no voice screaming more loudly about the need for reform in the mining industry than the miners themselves and to my knowledge there has never been a miner who said they would rather die of pneumoconiosis than not go down the mine to dig for coal. Ergo there is nothing voluntary about their death…Their choice is a bleak one….die of CWP or fail to support your family.

          People who have a conscience volunteer for dangerous work all the time, because they are willing to sacrifice for others, even those they do not know. My family has always volunteered for military service, knowing full well they could be sent to war. My father, brother and nephew have all been deployed into war zones, and my father died as a result of his wartime service.

          You are being purposely obtuse killer. Voluntary vs involuntary.

          Of course if workers see a way that additional safety measures are feasible, they will call for them. Amazing how you worked that logic out all on your own! 😆

          Britain’s most dangerous jobs

          Builder
          Rubbish collector
          Miner
          Shopkeeper
          Mechanic
          Teacher
          Librarian
          Estate agent

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10845754/Britains-most-dangerous-jobs.html

          By your logic the UK should stop all construction and garbage collection. Lovely! 😆

          You have presented false arguments all the way down (with no citations), because you know you cannot defend the deaths of innocents who have not volunteered for sacrifice. When your government mandates wind energy, they are killing over 2000 involuntary and innocent humans per year, and that is an underestimation. It is also an abomination, and you support it.

          Now that we have a very reasoned, reasonable, and conservative figure, we need your answer.

          How many killer?

        • Chris Barron says:

          “In the UK its been below 1 GW out of 12GW installed for most of the last 24 hours.

          UNRELIABLE !”

          In direct contradiction to your ownar assertion that none can be guaranteed you continue to prove that without question some can always be guaranteed.

          During the colder months, in January for example, wind was regularly producing over 15%……which means that at those times coal and gas imports were positively affected (best case scenario = no imported coal)….as coal and gas imports were reduced the reduction in the number of black lung disease cases can only have been affected positively, at the cost of a raptor or maybe two .

          I can’t justify saving raptors for the sake of the lives of good family men who die a terrible death from a disease they don’t ask to get.

          The ideal scenario is no deaths at all, but can you think of a power source which fits that criteria ?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Gees, Wind in the UK currently producing 448MW out of 12GW installed nameplate. That’s 3.7%… not very useful, hey !! 🙂

          What was the percentage you said could be guaranteed to supply 95% of the time?

          I don’t recall you ever having the guts to come up with a number 😉

        • Chris Barron says:

          The intelligent answer to the unintelligent question is ‘Who can guarantee when the wind will blow’

          If you’ve confused what you’ve read about wind with other forms of power then that’s okay….but I have never read a statement saying that wind is going to be the base load

          o
          Obviously, Gator’s suicidal voluntarily death miners could do better for themselves by moving to other industries, if they are even profitable (nuclear cannot be profitable using current means of production)

          But then who knows what Gator ever did as a job ? I’m just summising from Gator’s comments that they have never faced the situation of starve or do something terrible, which is the usual situation for many miners. I don’t know anyone who works for fun, let alone people who work to die for fun

          In a nation where the average wage is $47000 it is interesting to wonder what sort of person thinks that someone working for an average of $30000 with an unacceptably high accompanying risk might consider themselves a willful volunteer ?

          Even if the implementation of better working conditions for miners doubled the price of coal I would support such a measure. Would Gator ?

        • gator69 says:

          Looks like you failed again killer.

          There were 28 fatal injuries in coal mining in 2007, down from an average of 31 fatalities per year from 2003 to 2006. In 2007, 20 fatalities (or 71 percent of all fatalities in coal mining) were in bituminous coal underground mining. Contact with objects and equipment and transportation incidents were the most frequent fatal events with 18 and 5 fatal injuries respectively.

          http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/osar0012.htm

          That sure is alot less than 2000, but you better have Andy explain it.

          Even if the implementation of better working conditions for miners doubled the price of coal I would support such a measure. Would Gator ?

          Unnecessary straw man killer, even when you add in Black Lung deaths, you are less than 10% of wind turbine deaths.

          But then who knows what Gator ever did as a job ? I’m just summising from Gator’s comments that they have never faced the situation of starve or do something terrible, which is the usual situation for many miners.

          I was actually a repo man in East St Louis while a starving college student. I was shot at several times, but fortunately I was quite lean, and they were poor shots. I had people try to run me over, and more death threats than you can imagine.

          I would have been a military man, like almost every male in my family for generations, but tore up my knees so bad playing soccer, that I could not even be drafted.

          Now back to your death mills…

          First of all, I started this discussion over UK deaths, since that is your homeland, and your endorsement directly effects only the UK. You keep throwing up worldwide figures on coal, which is a false argument, as anyone knows the Chinese coal industry work force is practically a slave colony, with little protection.

          Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day.
          Yet the latest Office of National Statistics figures show that there were 25,700 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in winter 2010.
          Meanwhile the latest WHO research suggests that 30 to 40 per cent of the excess winter deaths can be attributed to fuel poverty.

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fuel-poverty-deaths-three-times-higher-than-government-estimates-7462426.html

          So there is the raw number from 2010 or before. That answers your question, but let’s figure out how many wind kills.

          This chart shows fuel poverty households doubling from 2004 to 2009.

          One of the major factors behind increasing fuel poverty in the UK is government policies instituted to meet carbon stabilization targets, the most aggressive in the world.

          The average annual bill for a customer using electricity and natural gas is about 6 percent of median household income now, up from 3.3 percent in 2004. Since 2004, the cost of energy in the UK increased by 117 percent–more than six times faster than UK household income (which only increased by 18 percent since 2004). If these trends continue, energy’s share of median household income in the UK will reach 7.4 percent by 2013, 8.2 percent in 2014, and 10 percent in 2015.

          And with these cost increases, the death toll keeps rising. So a doubling from 2004 to 2009, and 7800 deaths in 2010, means that a conservative estimate puts government mandated renewables at about 3500+ per year, 5 years ago. And again, the figures are rising.

          This chart breaks down renewables by type, and wind is 67% of the problem.

          https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/MoI-MAx-eijGUnltrTXdQtt8QNSA1TWlUxCWD9qGcrv2ALYlkJAMsWlYvo6J0jQhGjCXYsKkc0CLVYKxqO-QuFt92J-0Vs-ulpgSRCsVWcJgQ_69B8Q7rgBb8M8b9qAc3NAXIP0

          When it comes to wind and solar power, onshore wind power is the most effective form of renewable energy in terms of capital cost. It only costs approximately 9 times as much as conventional power generation. On average across Europe, the capacity utilization is about 23%.

          Offshore wind power is about 17 times more expensive to install, but its increased capacity factors mean that it should be significantly more productive than onshore installations. Nonetheless, in addition to the significant additional capital costs, offshore wind power appears to have major problems with costlier long term maintenance and questionable reliability.

          http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/08/analysis-shows-wind-and-solar-power-in-europe-is-on-average-16-times-more-expensive-than-gas-fired-power/#sthash.WIriuIi7.dpuf

          So with wind being overall the most expensive of renewables, 67% of 3500 is 2345 involuntary and innocent humans sacrificed in 2010, and again, he numbers keep rising. But just to be fair, let’s call it 2000 per year killer.

          The killer claims, without citation: You posted a figure for injury related industrial deaths. Black lung disease is not an injury related death statistic according to official figures….the very reason it is kept out of official figures is to hide the terrible toll death toll of coal mining disease. A work related disease is not thought of as an industrial injury

          That’s not what the law says, so you will need to prove that…

          Illnesses created by the work environment, like medical conditions caused by exposure to chemicals, are also compensable. In general, any injury or illness that requires the worker to see a doctor or that results in disability or death qualifies for workers’ compensation benefits. A doctor must be able to verify that there is objective medical evidence showing that an injury or disease exists and that work exposure was the major cause.

          http://www.segarlaw.com/questions/

          The killer spews: Your assertion that miners give their lives voluntarily suggests you don’t know much about miners. They know there is a risk, they assume the risk factors and aspects are monitored and managed by the mine managers.

          I don’t think these 2000 people want to lose their jobs, as it is not a strike over work conditions that is threatening to close the mines. Obviously these 2000 people want to work at the mine.

          Two of Britain’s three remaining deep pit coal mines face closure in the next 18 months with the loss of more than 1,300 jobs under plans announced by the country’s largest coal producer.
          UK Coal is consulting on plans to shut Kellingley in Yorkshire, which employs 700 people, and Thoresby in Nottinghamshire, which employs 600.
          It will leave employee-owned Hatfield colliery in South Yorkshire as Britain’s last remaining deep pit mine.
          Jobs are also likely to go at UK Coal’s head office in Doncaster, South Yorkshire.
          It will mean the majority of the 2,000 people employed by UK Coal – which also operates six surface sites – facing a bleak future, just nine months after it was rescued from administration.

          http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/02/uks-last-deep-pit-coal-mines-threatened-with-closure

          The killer spews: There is no voice screaming more loudly about the need for reform in the mining industry than the miners themselves and to my knowledge there has never been a miner who said they would rather die of pneumoconiosis than not go down the mine to dig for coal. Ergo there is nothing voluntary about their death…Their choice is a bleak one….die of CWP or fail to support your family.

          People who have a conscience volunteer for dangerous work all the time, because they are willing to sacrifice for others, even those they do not know. My family has always volunteered for military service, knowing full well they could be sent to war. My father, brother and nephew have all been deployed into war zones, and my father died as a result of his wartime service.

          You are being purposely obtuse killer. Voluntary vs involuntary.

          Of course if workers see a way that additional safety measures are feasible, they will call for them. Amazing how you worked that logic out all on your own! 😆

          Britain’s most dangerous jobs

          Builder
          Rubbish collector
          Miner
          Shopkeeper
          Mechanic
          Teacher
          Librarian
          Estate agent

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10845754/Britains-most-dangerous-jobs.html

          By your logic the UK should stop all construction and garbage collection. Lovely! 😆

          You have presented false arguments all the way down (with no citations), because you know you cannot defend the deaths of innocents who have not volunteered for sacrifice. When your government mandates wind energy, they are killing over 2000 involuntary and innocent humans per year, and that is an underestimation. It is also an abomination, and you support it.

          Now that we have a very reasoned, reasonable, and conservative figure we need your answer.

          How many killer? Happy with over two thousand innocent and involuntary bodies on your doorstep every year? Of course by now that figure is probably close to double, but you tell me if your death mills are worth the cost of 2000 innocent people.

          Your advocacy sure puts the kill in kilowatt.

          They are murder mills Chris, and you are their best advocate.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Run and hide..

          Dig deep little worm ! 🙂

          You really are a pathetic coward. !

          ANSWER THE QUESTION, slimy little worm.

        • AndyG55 says:

          UK now running at 386MW out of 12GW.. that’s 3.2%

          Trying to decide which is more pathetic,……

          wind energy or you and your juvenile worm-like refusal to answer a simple question.

  6. Gail Combs says:

    Thorium Nuclear….

    Save the coal for use as a chemical precursor for plastics…..

    • Chris Barron says:

      Save all fossil fuels…not just for plastics, Gail….for all the amazing compounds we derive from them, from fertilisers to medicines……but ‘let the steam engineers burn them as fast as they can get them’ , seems to be the order of the day.

      I had high hopes for Thorium…but it turns out that every reactor built since the 50’s had to be switched off because it din’t come up to scratch, or ended up needing so much uranium that a uranium plant became more financially viable

      • Gail Combs says:

        I also have/had high hopes for thorium. I keep checking progress via the World Nuclear Association
        http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Thorium/
        (Updated April 2015) lots of info. here is one passage:

        Developing a thorium-based fuel cycle

        Thorium fuel cycles offer attractive features, including lower levels of waste generation, less transuranic elements in that waste, and providing a diversification option for nuclear fuel supply. Also, the use of thorium in most reactor types leads to extra safety margins. Despite these merits, the commercialization of thorium fuels faces some significant hurdles in terms of building an economic case to undertake the necessary development work.

        A great deal of testing, analysis and licensing and qualification work is required before any thorium fuel can enter into service. This is expensive and will not eventuate without a clear business case and government support. Also, uranium is abundant and cheap and forms only a small part of the cost of nuclear electricity generation, so there are no real incentives for investment in a new fuel type that may save uranium resources..

        Other impediments to the development of thorium fuel cycle are the higher cost of fuel fabrication and the cost of reprocessing to provide the fissile plutonium driver material. The high cost of fuel fabrication (for solid fuel) is due partly to the high level of radioactivity that builds up in U-233 chemically separated from the irradiated thorium fuel. Separated U-233 is always contaminated with traces of U-232 which decays (with a 69-year half-life) to daughter nuclides such as thallium-208 that are high-energy gamma emitters. Although this confers proliferation resistance to the fuel cycle by making U-233 hard to handle and easy to detect, it results in increased costs. There are similar problems in recycling thorium itself due to highly radioactive Th-228 (an alpha emitter with two-year half life) present. Some of these problems are overcome in the LFTR or other molten salt reactor and fuel cycle designs, rather than solid fuel.

        Particularly in a molten salt reactor, the equilibrium fuel cycle is expected to have relatively low radiotoxicity, being fission products only plus short-lived Pa-233, without transuranics. These are continually removed in on-line reprocessing, though this is more complex than for the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle.

        Nevertheless, the thorium fuel cycle offers energy security benefits in the long-term – due to its potential for being a self-sustaining fuel without the need for fast neutron reactors. It is therefore an important and potentially viable technology that seems able to contribute to building credible, long-term nuclear energy scenarios.….
        http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Thorium/

        At least they do not offer B.S.

        India’s plans for thorium cycle

        With huge resources of easily-accessible thorium and relatively little uranium, India has made utilization of thorium for large-scale energy production a major goal in its nuclear power programme, utilising a three-stage concept:

        Pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) and light water reactors fuelled by natural uranium producing plutonium that is separated for use in fuels in its fast reactors and indigenous advanced heavy water reactors.
        Fast breeder reactors (FBRs) will use plutonium-based fuel to extend their plutonium inventory. The blanket around the core will have uranium as well as thorium, so that further plutonium (particularly Pu-239) is produced as well as U-233.
        Advanced heavy water reactors (AHWRs) will burn thorium-plutonium fuels in such a manner that breeds U-233 which can eventually be used as a self-sustaining fissile driver for a fleet of breeding AHWRs.

        In all of these stages, used fuel needs to be reprocessed to recover fissile materials for recycling.

        India is focusing and prioritizing the construction and commissioning of its fleet of 500 MWe sodium-cooled fast reactors in which it will breed the required plutonium which is the key to unlocking the energy potential of thorium in its advanced heavy water reactors. This will take another 15-20 years, and so it will still be some time before India is using thorium energy to any extent. The 500 MWe prototype FBR under construction in Kalpakkam is expected to start up in 2014.

        In 2009, despite the relaxation of trade restrictions on uranium, India reaffirmed its intention to proceed with developing the thorium cycle…..

        So India maybe where we see the development of commercially viable thorium nuclear palnts. India also had the good sense to toss the foreign Greenpeace agitators out on their ear. Why Greenpeace should be banned…

        • gator69 says:

          BAU here on planet Earth. The ‘Peak Sone’ scare was overcome by bronze, the ‘Peak Bronze’ scare was overcome by iron, the ‘Peak Iron’ scare was overcome by…

          Let men do what men do best, innovate, and get government out of the way. Ignore and mock the Malthusians, shove tyrants to the side, and watch as we continue to make life better for all living creatures on planet Earth.

          It will never be perfect, but it can be better.

        • Chris Barron says:

          As thorium in India is going to depend heavily on Uranium we had better hope that the Japanese attempts to recover uranium from sea water goes well or all the mineable uranium will run out first…..their current attempts produces very small amounts too slowly to be useful and their appears to be a complete lack of financial backing to scale up such an idea. They don’t seem to be as keen on nuclear don’t the Japanese, following Fukushima.

          Tunnel and pit mining of uranium is the cheapest method, mostly carried out in Africa by the poorest workers in the worst conditions, but it gets the job done.

          The majority of our uranium comes from leaching methods….uranium ore spoil stacks are flooded with sulphuric (sulfuric ?) acid and the uranium is dissolved….not an ideal system, especially if you don’t want the result to look like a Chinese rare earth toxic lake afterwards.

          in North America the preferred method is in-situ leaching where the pregnant solution is pumped down underground and the uranium ore is directly dissolved into it before returning to the surface, in a process which isn’t too different to fracking.

          The problem at the moment is that the more expensive leaching methods are hardly sustainable due to the low price of uranium and therefore the supply chain from Africa has been enlarged….which is good in the sense that it means the cheaper uranium can still be supplied to the existing reactors, but the method of recovery is highly controversial due to the obvious health risks to the workers bringing up the uranium cake.

          Mine owners are known to refuse to attempt to rescue workers, following mine collapses, due to the costs involved.

          The price of uranium fell so low following Fukushima in fact that the more expensive traditional tunnel mining approach proved to be too expensive (though I suspect that as it was a French company the working standards and safety precautions were exceptional adding a large amount to the overall cost

          http://www.mining.com/low-uranium-prices-shelve-central-african-mine/

          If we were to approach uranium from a market forces point of view then classical economics says as demand rises the price rises, which is good in the sense that it becomes more affordable, but then the costs associated with sustaining a high quality supply only adds to the price even further and that will be passed on tot he consumer. I don’t know how much a Thorium reactor costs to decommission, if it is anything like a conventional reactor then it will add a significant amount to the final cost of using nuclear, except it won’t be added onto the electric bills, but instead it will be paid for by the taxpayer through taxation as only government bodies are currently involved in decommissioning , using special licences, here in the UK

          On in situ leaching [ Quote]
          Solutions used to dissolve uranium ore are either acid (sulfuric acid or less commonly nitric acid) or carbonate (sodium bicarbonate, ammonium carbonate, or dissolved carbon dioxide). Dissolved oxygen is sometimes added to the water to mobilize the uranium. ISL of uranium ores started in the United States and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s. The first uranium ISL in the US was in the Shirley Basin in the state of Wyoming, which operated from 1961-1970 using sulfuric acid. Since 1970, all commercial-scale ISL mines in the US have used carbonate solutions.[2] ISL mining in Australia uses acid solutions].[3]
          [Unquote]

          If people are making huge noises about fracking….which only uses water under pressure….the backlash over acid or carbonate solutions can be expected to be larger if there is any signs that these methods produce damaging pollution.

          Currently almost 50% of the world’s uranium is acquired through in situ leaching, ISL, and our friends at friends of the earth are keeping tracks already, as we might expect them to do
          http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/u/isl/articles

      • Gail Combs says:

        Chris, the ‘plastics…..’ was for all the rest of the ‘amazing compounds ‘ I just can’t spell worth beans and I was too lazy to go look up the spelling of the words I wanted.

        I am a chemist and worked in industry for years and consider burning organics a crying shame. That is why I am very pro-nuclear to the point I live near enough a nuclear plant I can see it’s cooling tower out the window.

        If they could actually make the Thorium nuclear car work it would be FANTASTIC!

        (Not to mention the fact it is an awesome looking vehicle.)

        Although at this point I think ships and possibly locomotives are more feasable.

        If I was not on the wrong side of the county and dead broke I would consider this — draging our PhD Nuclear Physicist friend with us as translator.
        http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/

        HMMmm maybe I will ship that URL off to him and he might go without us and report back…

        • AndyG55 says:

          I have nothing against thorium nuclear.. except..

          We NEED to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Its been so very low for so long, and the biosphere is just starting to respond.

          Let’s not go send the poor plants back to starvation rations.

        • gator69 says:

          Seconded!

          Imagine how lush and large our forests would be, and how much more food we could produce on less farmland, allowing for more natural habitats.

          The CO2-phobic not only hate humans, they hate plants and animals too!

        • Neal S says:

          Deep ocean reserves of liquid CO2 could be brought up to help increase CO2 levels without the need for burning more coal or oil or wood.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy,
          There is no reason (except the madness of progs) to keep us from using both. Petroleum based products for transportation and nuclear for base loat electric. Natural gas for dmand load.

          If we ever bother to help the third world into the 20th century, they will be burning a lot of carbon based products too.

          For those who whine about too many humans and peak whatever I suggest reading:

          There Is No Shortage of Stuff

          Unlimiting Resources – Basalt for a High Tech Stone Age

          There is no energy shortage

          The best method for curbing population growth is civilization and education. When it comes to technology I am optimistic when it comes to politics I am pessimistic.

        • gator69 says:

          “Malthusianism is a school of ideas derived from the political/economic thought of the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, as laid out in his 1798 writings, An Essay on the Principle of Population, which describes how unchecked population growth is exponential while the growth of the food supply was expected to be arithmetical. Malthus believed there were two types of “checks” that could then reduce the population, returning it to a more sustainable level. He believed there were “preventive checks” such as moral restraints (abstinence, delayed marriage until finances become balanced), and restricting marriage against persons suffering poverty and/or defects. Malthus believed in “positive checks”, which lead to ‘premature’ death: disease, starvation, war, resulting in what is called aMalthusian catastrophe. The catastrophe would return population to a lower, more “sustainable”, level.[1][2] The term has been applied in different ways over the last two hundred years, and has been linked to a variety of other political and social movements, but almost always refers to advocates of population control.”

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

          Malthus failed to be a visionary, and did not foresee technological advances that have allowed humanity to prosper under populations far beyond his imagination. Technology and industrialization have not only saved humanity, but have also assisted in saving the natural world around us. We can now produce the same amount of food that we did in 1960, on a third as much land, leaving more room for nature. It is estimated that we have passed “Peak Farmland”, and that we can continue to support humanity on less farmland.

          Sadly there are still many adherents to 18th century alarmism, and proselytes of Rev Malthuis with us to this day, and they call themselves “sustainability” advocates.

          The following 10 minute video is inspiring, and well researched, and the message is that our grandchildren will be just fine, provided the governments let us be.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Yes, Gator, Andy we do need to up the amount of CO2. I would like to see 1500 ppm.

          I wonder if we got the air up to 1500 ppm to 2000 ppm CO2 if a lot of the allergy and asthma problems would go away as the CO2 healed our lungs…

          http://www.normalbreathing.com/co2-lung-damage.php

        • gator69 says:

          They Malthusian CO2-phobics give a whole new meaning to this old slogan, with their ethanol producing and plant food sequestering agenda…

        • AndyG55 says:

          Gail, the Buteyko method of breathing increases the amount of CO2 in the lungs.
          Often asthmatics breathe too shallowly, and this reduces the CO2 in the lungs.

          CO2 is a bronchial dilator, so is very beneficial to those suffering from asthma of the kind that restricts the bronchial tubes.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Neil, that seems an odd and rather expensive way of going about things, when just using coal for electrical power is already doing the job. 🙂

          Yuck, more heavy rain. Work has been closed today and yesterday because of the dangerous storms. Went to do some shopping, trees down everywhere, traffic lights out, a lot of houses haven’t had electricity for 36 hours and counting. The place is soaked, its a total quagmire down the back of the yard.. Where’s Flannery !!

        • gator69 says:

          FYI – If you know an asthmatic, this is food for thought. I was canoeing in a remote area when a friend’s husband who lost his inhaler and nearly died. I wish I had known about this then…

          http://medfraud.info/Barbados-study.html

          http://www.everydayhealth.com/asthma/specialists/can-you-stop-an-asthma-attack-with-the-heimlich.aspx

          It could save a life, but not all are not convinced.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thanks gator, I seem to have developed Asthma over the winter and have friends and family who are asthmatics.

  7. Gail Combs says:

    gator69 says: “BAU here on planet Earth. The ‘Peak Stone’ scare was overcome by bronze….”

    You forgot the The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894

    http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20140116&t=2&i=830097996&w=644&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=CBREA0F1I7W00

    The January 16, 2014 comment by an irate french citizen -Say it with Horse Manure! – tempting, very tempting….

    • Gail Combs says:

      Just a trial
      s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20140116&t=2&i=830097996&w=644&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=CBREA0F1I7W00.jpeg

    • gator69 says:

      Son, to me that’s a tiptoe through the tulips!
      -Col. Sherman T. Potter

    • gator69 says:

      Speaking of spreading manure, these critters sure are happy spring is finally here…

      • Gail Combs says:

        My ponies celebrate spring by playing dead pony.

        I was used to horses who normally do not lie down much. The first time I looked out the window on a spring morning and saw a whole field full of ponies laying flat out in the ‘dead’ position I almost had a heart attack. I was about to rush out and check to see if they were all dead when my Hubby said – “I saw an ear twitch”

        This is the more typical position:

  8. David, UK says:

    It’s funny, but nowadays I see a picture of psychopathic politicians doing that silly pose with hands on hearts, as in the picture at the near-top, and all I see are Nazi salutes.

    • gator69 says:

      It’s not the pose. It’s the Progressives on stage under an American flag, pretending they stand for liberty, that is silly.

  9. Menicholas says:

    Those pictures at the top make me sick. Physically ill.
    What the hell is wrong with people?

  10. Gail Combs says:

    AndyG55 says:….
    I think one of the reasons a mask helps an asthmatic is because it increases the amount of CO2 as much as it filters out irritants.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s