Log in

No account? Create an account
07 February 2011 @ 08:53 am
Wind energy whoas, The smell of corruption...  
Wind energy is taking a well deserved caning as the reality of the integration of "free" (insert maniacal laugh) energy bites. What is abundantly clear is that the lobbyists, advisors and business oversold by 100% the capabilities of industrial wind farms and politicians, even today endorsing such are no less guilty. The lobbyists and purveyors need to pay for the deception. All three parties need to be quizzed for invisible join, continuous gross mismanagement. The need for cost benefit reports conducted by impartial experts has been ignored to the point of criminal negligence to my mind. Reports available from 2005 and earlier from authorities such as EOn have been ignored and the British population has been press ganged into paying for a wholly unsuitable ornament to solve the under-catered for energy needs of the very near future. It seems the only problem wind energy solves is the need to gratify the enthusiasts progressing the falsely named green energy industry in the EC.
The question that needs answering is why do we have so-called green energy at all? Who profits? The climate gains no benefit, the environment is impacted and energy poverty has been increasing along with cold deaths due to it. Investigations rather than supportive inquiries need to be initiated instead of continuing investment and propagandising inflated claims.

Spectator - Wind Energy Deal Blows Away

"We reject the application because we find that the Manzana Wind Project is not cost-competitive and poses unacceptable risks to ratepayers. We find that the proposed cost of the Manzana Wind Project is significantly higher than other resources PG&E can procure to meet its RPS program goal. Moreover, it will subject the ratepayers to unacceptable risks due to potential cost increases resulting from project under-performance, less than forecasted project life, and any delays which might occur concerning transmission upgrades and commercial online date. As a proposed utility-owned generation project, ratepayers would pay a lump sum cost rather than a performance based cost for the Manzana Wind Project. Therefore, ratepayers would be at risk if the project underperforms. In particular, if the Manzana Wind Project fails to achieve production as expected for any reason such as construction delays or curtailments as a result of a collision with a California condor, shareholders face no risks while customers could incur increased costs. In contrast, under a power purchase agreement, project owners rather than ratepayers bear the risk of project performance.... Full story
here. (Via Daily Bayonet that discusses the issues here Wind power's dirty little secrets)

Mail, April last year
Hundreds of wind turbines could be SINKING due to design flaw
Hundreds of Britain's offshore wind turbines could be sinking into the sea because of a design flaw. It is believed the concrete used to fix some turbines to their steel foundation can wear away, causing the power generators to drop a few inches. The fault was first discovered at the Egmond aan Zee wind farm in the Netherlands and affects those with single cylinder foundations.
CBC this month
Nuttby Mountain turbine bases cracked
Nearly all of the 22 turbine foundations at Nova Scotia Power's Nuttby Mountain wind farm are cracked, CBC News has learned.The problem came to light late last year when it was discovered five of the towers were moving beyond manufacturers specifications.

Adding to the costs, regular inspections of foundations are required to ensure the white elephant monuments to stupidity and or corruption haven't become unsafe. Consider the cost of that for offshore industrial wind farms.

There is no question that wind energy has its uses (pumping water, grinding flour, desalination etc. and small, local energy solutions at locations where cost benefit justifies) but solving UK energy problems is not one. To commit to the most obvious alternative, nuclear at present is to commit to technology that is rapidly being out-dated by cheaper, far safer methods with materials that don't remain dangerous beyond decades contrasted with conventional fuels that are a hazard for millennia. Such would also avoid implementation of rapid energy solutions such as coal and gas that can be ready in a few years compared to nuclear's two decades plus.

On the science, the reason for the existence of industrial wind farms blighting the countryside, why is so little being done to study the influences of the volume and phase changes of water vapour in the stratosphere?
My belief with the knowledge gleaned from extensive reading is that visible and longwave radiation from the Sun controls the underlying temperature of the troposphere and that the shorter wave radiation causes the climate oscillations between ~8 and ~18C. The higher energy frequencies such as UV B and C penetrate to the surface regulated by albedo of cloud, ice crystals and light coloured aerosols and by ozone absorption. Longwave is intercepted by water vapour so the stratospheric volume determines IR penetration of the troposphere. Each of the regulating factors mentioned has their volume determined by small changes in solar energy emitted by the Sun. Even aerosols e.g. from eruptions and dust storms can have their origin and volume traced to solar influence.
Donna Laframboise writes:
Perceptions of Pachauri (What do IPCC insiders really think of chairman Rajendra Pachauri?)
[...] But my perceptions are one thing. Those of IPCC insiders are another. Last year, a committee of the InterAcademy Council investigated the IPCC. In the process it distributed a questionnaire that was completed by 232 individuals. Some of these people have no direct experience of the IPCC process. Others have had only peripheral involvement as expert reviewers. Still others are government representatives.
Despite the fact that two IPCC insiders, above, say Pachauri lacks “the necessary expertise” to make sound judgments because “he does not come from this scientific field and does not know the subject in depth,” the UK’s Guardian newspaper nevertheless reverently describes him as the world’s leading climate scientist.
This is a prime example how the media, having long given the IPCC a free ride, has significantly contributed to these problems. (Walter Russell Mead persuasively makes that case here.)
Rather than peering at this large, politically-charged organization through a rigorous, fact-checking lens, rather than asking Pachauri why he is violating the IPCC’s explicit mandate to remain neutral, the world’s journalists have largely acted as his cheerleaders. /full post

Mr. Chairman, Your Carriage Awaits
According to some people the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a marvelous organization – so marvelous it should be regarded as a prototype. A month ago, therefore, the UN General Assembly formally created the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
As the
press release explains, this body will be an “IPCC for Nature” which will:
…in many ways mirror the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has assisted in catalyzing worldwide understanding and governmental action on global warming.

There’s just one problem. The IPCC model is utterly dysfunctional. It is a screeching, flashing, billboard-sized example of influence without accountability. For proof of this statement, one need look no further than the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.
The editorial board of the London Times
thinks Pachauri should resign. It says he “presided over the use of dodgy science” in the IPCC’s 2007 report, that he ignored legitimate criticism when it first emerged, and that he has let us all down. /full post here

Donna's recent posts
How Does the IPCC Safeguard Against Bias?
NASA, Climate Change, and Children

Want Kids to Learn Science?
What They Said About the Climate Models
Teachers: the New Green Police
Does the IPCC Follow the Rules? Insiders Say 'No'
Credit Where It's Due
If IPCC Meetings Were Televised
The Sneaky, Not-So-Secret Purpose of the IPCC