February 5th, 2011

Winding up WE, nuke it, NWO banker BS, Chem trails, Volcanoes and floods

Caithness Wind farm Information Forum,
Total number of accidents: 966, recent stats: 2005 - 70, 2006 - 82, 2007 - 121, 2008 - 128, 2009 - 124, 2010 - 92
The summary may be downloaded in printable form here, the detailed accident list with sources may be downloaded here.
For images: Industrial Wind Action Group

Don't believe the propagandised BS, 26% of maximum output, that was the very best industrial farm in the UK, others were far worse. Output does not equal usable energy. 8% of capacity and less is a reasonable working figure due to production at off peak low need times.
(Neta energy supply stats. here.)

Worth a near 30% price hike in recent energy bills? They can't save the climate, don't replace fossil fuel, badly fail cost-benefits and are unreliable. WTF is the gov't doing? Is it deliberate? Look, a 2005 gov't report by Deutsche-Energie Agentur, cited by EOn and discussed here revealed:
These studies are the first real evidence showing how wind actually works, as opposed to what has been claimed, and come from some of the most authoritative voices on energy in the world. Reports from E.On Netz, the system operator with the largest wind power feed-in in the world, and Eltra of Denmark, which had the largest percentage wind power contribution, show disturbing results.
E.On cites a study from the Deutsche-Energie Agentur. The report was sponsored by the German government and all sides of the industry. Among bombshells contained inside, the study suggests that while
wind power capacity will reach 48 GW by 2020 in Germany, the source is so intermittent and unreliable that it is equivalent to only 2 GW of stable fossil fuel capacity.
The evidence also shows a mismatch of supply and demand. High pressure weather systems bring cold winters and hot summers which unfortunately coincide with low wind levels. These meteorological realities mean that wind makes its maximum contribution when demand is lowest and its minimum contribution when demand is highest. In 2004, wind accounted for 20 percent of total electricity production in Denmark but supplied only 6 percent of consumption, because it produced a surplus at periods of lowest demand. What's more, 84 percent of Danish wind-generated electricity was exported to Norway, and sold at a loss for Denmark. Furthermore, the Norwegian electricity system uses carbon free hydro power, so the effect of carbon reductions realised in power produced by windmills was nullified.
Also, because of this variability in wind, back-up fossil fuel plants must be operated at low load to maintain system reliability. There is new evidence that shows that switching base load fossil fuel plants on and off to balance a system produces higher carbon emissions than continuous operation, certainly not a supposed benefit from switching to renewable energy sources.
Because wind installations tend to be concentrated in areas with high wind speeds, regional grids are heavily overloaded at times of maximum feed-in. Each country studied reported extreme difficulties in balancing the grid. A further 2,700 km of costly high voltage transmission lines will be required in Germany to accommodate new wind capacity
Our Louise wrote: Despite high demand for electricity as people shivered at home over Christmas, most of the 3,000 wind turbines around Britain stood still due to a lack of wind. Here

How soon can subsidies be stopped and legislation for their energy purchase repealed? Denmark, the gold standard has already stopped further investment.

Is the sum of wind and solar energy, biofuel, carbon credits, CCS, suppression of cheap energy development and use to be categorised as the EC and UK's biggest con cum disaster to date or can we count them individually?

What is sad in all this is that perps will escape to the grave unpunished. Still, their names will be recorded in history as the biggest con enablers and implementers of all time (so far), some of them as traitors to descendants whose money is being funnelled into the boondoggles.

(Links via WUWT comments. The best resource for up to date studies on the wind energy boondoggle is Master Resource, e.g. ‘Gresham’s Law of Green Energy’ (Jonathan Lesser on bad energy driving out good))

CCnet update in the next post, here's a taster from Lubos:
EU 2020 climate targets: $3.9 trillion (surely he means the European Commission?)

My thought on nuclear energy plants was to wait a while, we can't afford them and new developments are in progress, Features of the new Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor (Th-MSR) for which IThEMS owns Key Technologies.
A progress report here gen-4.org/Technology/systems/msr.htm. I believe the waste is relatively harmless after 50 years compared with conventional fuels that take many thousands.

Bernanke the BoE's Fed Res usurer and currency coiner on biofuel driving food prices.
Bernanke denies US policy behind record global food prices
Mr Bernanke said that the rapid growth of developing economies was behind the increase in food prices, rather than the Fed’s decision to embark on a second, $600bn (£371bn) round of printing money.
Is it impossible for such people to say the truth?

Another world class BSer, Gore, the sceptics' best friend via the Daily Bayonet round up:
Al Gore Mea Culpa: Support for Corn-Based Ethanol Was a Mistake
The EPA Must Die for Al Gore's Sins

And another DB stab:If the UN IPCC falls apart, one woman will stand amid the ruins to ensure no bricks are left standing.  Donna Laframboise gently straps on her combat boots to tear IPCC leader Pachauir a new one:
Given all of the above, why has he [Pachauir] not done the honourable thing and fallen on his sword? Why has he not acknowledged that his continued presence is harming the cause he claims to believe in so passionately? What is more important – restoring the IPCC’s reputation or the vanity of a 70-year-old man who’d prefer to remain in the limelight until 2014?


Climateer alarmists staged a farce, 18 of them wrote a letter (the full UN consensus, who were the other 2?).
Scientists ask Congress to put aside politics, take 'fresh look' at climate data

Newscientist wrote about the attempted peace deal between the tricksters and the realists. Jail terms and fines were not mentioned at this stage.
Climate sceptics and scientists attempt peace deal
The meeting was the brainchild of University of Oxford science philosopher Jerry Ravetz, an 81-year-old Greenpeace member who fears Al Gore may have done as much damage to environmentalism as Joseph Stalin did to socialism.
Ignorant a commenter wrote:
The key word in all that is of course agenda. Political. Personal. Financial. Egotistical agenda.
The minute science stopped being the pursuit of knowedge and became the pursuit of funding it became a wide open field for agenda - Political agenda fuelled by governments with either a politically motivated socialist restructring agenda (or worse - in bed with the giant corporations agenda); Personal agendas fuelled by individuals attempts to control as many 'independent' government quangos as possible; Finanical agendas based on either wanting to get new funding or keep the funding they currently get and Egotistical agendas fuelled by scientists too small minded and hearted to realise a colleague may have found a better answer.
Heaven knows science should be an independent animal and perhaps someday all countries will contribute to a United Nations of Science where humble professionals may actually be allowed to solve the really big problems and stop wasting all of our time and resources quarelling over pseudo facts and actualy address the issue - Responsible use of resources.
Climate change - man made or not - is ultimately only a side show in our impending destruction of death by pollution one way or another

On pollution, the real stuff i.e.not invisible plant food:
Chem trails from jets
Typically mainstream news has not covered chemtrails as a news story. But one news station not only reported about it, they conducted tests. KSLA News 12 in Louisiana, conducted their own tests that observed what others have stated: chemtrails are leaving high amounts of barium and aluminum in the atmosphere that slowly falls to the ground.
Chemtrails are not new. Alive reports that in the winter of 1998 sky-obscuring chemtrails were “observed by thousands of eyewitnesses–including pilots, police officers and former military personnel–over Canada, the USA, Britain, Australia and allied European nations.”
In the same Alive article, author William Thomas wrote that in November 1999, residents of Espanola, Ontario presented a petition to the Canadian Parliament after USAF tankers sprayed sky-obscuring chemicals. The people of Espanola claimed that these chemicals made children and adults sick over a 50 square-mile area. Thomas writes, “Lab tests of rainwater falling through the chemical clouds measured amounts of aluminum particles seven times higher than federal health safety limits.”
Video (full length in 15 minute bites)

Mentioned by a WUWT commenter, a study that shows, "Correlation of Solar Activity Minimums and Large Magnitude Geophysical Events" here.
In the conclusion, As a result of research conducted, it is reasonable to conclude there exists a strong correlation between global volcanic activity among the largest of classes of eruptions and solar activity lows. With the 80.6% occurrence of large scale global volcanic eruptions taking place (>VEI 5) during solar activity lows and with 87.5% occurring for the very largest (>VEI 6) eruptions during major solar minimums, it is concluded that any reliable predictive tool for forecasting future solar activity would also lend itself to forecasts for future global volcanic eruptions of the most powerful magnitudes. For example the RC Theory of solar activity may be an effective tool for forecast of global volcanism.

As we are in a Dalton, possibly developing to a Maunder type minimum, large volcanic eruptions and earthquakes can be expected to happen more often. Cooling cycle enhancers.

Image source: Japanese volcano awakens with a vengeance

A well put together report on "Causes of flooding in Bangladesh"
Most of it is below 1 mtr above sea level (and maybe due to mangroves destruction, "In the second half of the twentieth century, India lost more than half of its mangrove forests. In 1987, India had 674000 hectares of mangroves. Within a period of 10 years, that amount decreased to 483,000 ha, leaving the country open to attack by the wind and waves of cyclones that regularly hit the coast of eastern India and neighboring Bangladesh". See p345 Gorgle books)