Wind Turbines Are Neither Clean Nor Green and They Provide Zero Global Energy

The Spectator UK, Matt Ridley writes unclean, not green useless alternative energy.
The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.
You might even think,
…wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.
To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.
…together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand.
Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.
The point of running through these numbers is to demonstrate that it is utterly futile, on a priori grounds, even to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone to emissions reductions, without ruining the planet. As the late David MacKay pointed out years back, the arithmetic is against such unreliable renewables.

It takes tons of fossil fuels to produce the tons of turbines and solar panels. Green energy is the most counterintuitive political, social and economic fantasy humankind has ever devised.

German Technology: At a Cost of Only…

$1310 BILLION! That’s the price tag in Germany for the transition to the Green Power illusion: Sticker Shock [courtesy of New Nostradamus].

That’s a cost of only, 100 billion in Euros…

“For an ordinary person that astronomical amount of money is almost impossible to fathom. But there it is: That is how much Angela Merkel’s “green” energy transition policy – getting rid of nuclear power and installing subsidized wind and solar power – will cost the German taxpayers.
And note that cost estimate is not coming from some shady “dirty energy” lobby organization – it is Angela Merkel’s own environment minister Peter Altmeier, who disclosed the sum in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper.”

How many BILLIONS in Ontario?  How many more?  Will Premier Wynne-lose please stand up and answer?

The UN, the EU, and the Arhus Convention: Renewable Energy, a Conflict of Interest

Re-blogged from WCO; also re-blogged in Quixotes Last Stand

The Compliance Committee of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which enforces the Aarhus Convention, has released its final findings and recommendations regarding the case presented by Mr. Pat Swords, a chemical engineer from Ireland (1). In a nutshell, the UN is saying that if the EU wants to be in compliance with the said Convention, to which it is a party, it must have its 27 Member States properly reassess their National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP), and submit them to popular consultation. The Arhus Convention requires that, in matters affecting the environment, the citizens be consulted in a transparent manner before any policy is embarked upon. The Convention applies principles adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro.”

It has been argued in this Blog that McGuinty’s green legislation is ultra vires the Canadian Charter of Rights: in matters affecting the right to life and other freedoms, governments have a duty to consult their citizens openly and transparently before embarking on life-changing polices and enacting law that affects the health of individuals.  And just as the UN has reported concerning the EU’s policies (formulated in a conflict of interest because totally reliant on the IWT industry’s input), ditto for the Ontario Government that rubber stamps IWT projects in complete disregard of citizen opposition.

Read the report on the Report at the above quoted web addresses. Interesting too, is this footnote to the letter by the complainant who went to the UN committee:
“(2) – The latest independent study, based on actual data from official sources, shows only 4% of fuel savings realised by wind turbines as compared to their installed capacity. When wind energy exceeds 20% of the national energy mix, the savings turn negative – Dutch engineer C. (Kees) le Pair:”

Again, it has been argued and is still argued that IWT’s are inefficient energy producers that can never meet peak demands for power.  They are a complete waste of money and an investment no corporation would make, BUT FOR massive taxpayer subsidies.

UK Was Able to See the Wind Scam…

Why not Ontario??? The Spectator reported in March this year that the UK Gov’t had finally awakened to the wind energy SCAM: “To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero.”

AND: “…so how did the wind-farm scam fool so many policymakers?
One answer is money. There were too many people with snouts in the trough. Not just the manufacturers, operators and landlords of the wind farms, but financiers: wind-farm venture capital trusts were all the rage a few years ago — guaranteed income streams are what capitalists like best; they even get paid to switch the monsters off on very windy days so as not to overload the grid. Even the military took the money.”

Read Article..