Larry Pickering: on the Quixotic Calamity of Wind

pickering

Larry Pickering: slams another hard-‘green’-left Shibboleth.

***

Larry Pickering is a four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, whose life’s work has been irritating the loopy-left. Here he is slaying the great wind power fraud.

It’s more than a Quixotic Calamity
Larry Pickering
The Pickering Post
20 June 2015

wind3.png

Monuments to stupidity

****

The European Renewable Energy Foundation, a Green body supportive of all forms of renewable energy, has carried out research at Edinburgh University involving a look at years of wind farm performance data from the UK and Denmark.

Their conclusion is this:

“Put bluntly, wind turbines onshore and offshore still cost too much and wear out far too quickly to offer the developing world a realistic alternative to coal.”

And these guys are Green renewable energy nuts!

The good news for Australia is that this highly subsidised and ineffective form of Green inspired visual pollution will be non-existent within ten years.

The report [available here] found that by 10 years of age, the output of an average wind turbine will have declined by a third … and by 12 years of age it will be uneconomic to recondition the moving parts.

The bad news for Australia, if they intend to persist with this windmill madness, is that they will all reach their maximum life span at the same time!

Bloody thousands and thousands of these hideous, noisy monstrosities will all need to be replaced at once, and guess what? Investors will have headed for the hills because all those delicious subsidies will have disappeared like Christine Milne and it will cost governments (again you and me) a motza to dismantle and dump the things in the ocean as fish reefs.

They will become worthless bits of metal and plastic no other industry can possibly use. The government of the day will no doubt keep one turbine in a museum somewhere as an artifact so schoolchildren can be shown just how stupid the Greens really are.

South Australia, which has the highest cost of electricity in the nation and the most wind turbines per capita, has saved 4% of their rated capacity in fossil fuels at a cost of $1,484 per ton. That’s roughly $1,474 per ton more expensive than Europe’s current carbon credit price.

The cost of these commercial white elephants, that must eventually be destroyed, is between a highly subsidised $350,000 and $1.3 million each…and the temperature of the globe hasn’t shifted one thousandth of a degree.

Stand underneath a wind turbine that is typically 120 metres tall and try to imagine how our beautiful countryside once looked.

But that’s a visual and noise pollution that will never disadvantage the Greens, oh no, they’ll be happily sipping their lattes in leafy green inner suburbs.

Only two forms of energy can replace the Greens’ hated coal, and neither is wind or solar.

The only freely available clean forms of energy are hydro and nuclear but the Greens refuse to allow dams to be built while frogs need protecting and uranium evokes Green paranoia. Funny eh?
The Pickering Post

Hawaii rusting turbines

A glimpse into our “green” future ….

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.

Comments

  1. I follow Larry and most of the time he is on the money.

    This is an excellent article and probably pretty close to the mark, just try telling the greenie, left wing, lunatic fringe that.

    These wind turbines in Bavaria are totally rooted after eleven years and there are no spare parts for them.

    http://www.thelocal.de/20150623/stunning-video-of-wind-turbines-being-detonated

    This sets an interesting scenario for wind turbines in this country.

    TCW.

  2. David Mortimer says:

    Didn’t Julia Gillard stitch up a deal with China on behalf of Taswind for 200 turbines on King Island? What is happening to them?

    Also re Ceres HVDC transmission line, I understood that a reason why Taswind was not viable was that HVDC doesn’t work too good on wildly fluctuating input from wind turbines. I believe that the US is still trying to get it to work!

  3. The wind turbine blades as we watch them turning,
    How much in subsidies do you think they’re earning?
    Such an hideous expense
    To support a pretence,
    Although some sanity at last is returning.
    http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/mother-nature-is-laughing-shes-having-such-fun/

  4. The goat of greenhill road says:

    Senvion the proponent of the 200 turbine CERES project on South Australia’s Yorke Peninsula suggest they are more “buoyant” about the project following the passing of the RET legislation.

    In their words Senvion are now looking to fast track the project towards financial closure.

    Whilst they are trying to display an air of confidence about this project to investors and retailers, to the keen observer the project has a number of short comings.

    1/ $2 billon dollar price tag.
    2/ Huge connection cost with HVDC undersea cable.
    3/ 600 Mw proposal into small and shrinking SA power market.
    4/ Resoundingly unwanted by the community.
    5/ Unanimously rejected by the local council.
    6/ Huge litigation issues with aerial spraying and fire bombing.

    The question should be asked by Senvion Germany why “pretty boy” bought into and pursued a project of such magnitude.

    Smaller projects, closer to transmission facilities and the larger power markets where always going to have more chance of getting investment.

  5. Jackie Rovenksy says:

    Just in SA we have Starfish which began operating in 2003, Canunda, Lake Bonney Stage 1 and Wattle Point all began in 2005, with Catherdral Rocks in 2007 and Lake Bonney Stage 2 in 2008.
    So how long will they continue to operate?

    Also Canunda and the contiguous Lake Bonney Stages have been up for sale – no wonder, no-one wants them.

    I’ve wondered for a while just how many turbines will have to be erected to cover for the ones that ‘fall over’ due to age, and how will the energy required be provided while replacement is progressing.

    I came to the conclusion that the need to replace regularly will mean we will never be able to rely on this form of energy production to provide an ESSENTIAL service in a secure continuous manner when needed, and this is just one reason among others we can’t rely on it and why it will never be cost effective.

    No wonder companies have been unable to answer questions at the Senate Inquiry hearings as to how many more turbines will be needed to provide 100% of our energy needs – they know it will never happen.

    • David Mortimer says:

      The extra renewable energy (read, wind power) capacity required to be built over the next 5 years…is that rated capacity or effective output @ 25% of rated capacity. If it is rated capacity (name-plate) then wind can never be a serious contender because actual power produced will always be only one quarter at best of its claimed value.

      2020 is going to be like the archer who shot his arrow into the air and mist (spelling intentional).

  6. Reblogged this on Jaffer's blog and commented:
    What a con!

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

%d bloggers like this: