… it took a “study” to figure it out:
“The key problems with current policies for wind power are simple. They require a huge commitment of investment resources to a technology that is not very green, in the sense of saving a lot of CO2, but which is certainly very expensive and inflexible. Unless the current Government scales back its commitment to wind power very substantially, its policy will be worse than a mistake, it will be a blunder,” Professor Hughes said.
So:
It’s expensive by kwH and because of having to have reserves on-line
It’s unreliable, both because of wind, and because of blade shedding and other stuff
It’s not hugely green as a life-cycle thing
It’s intrusive ( noise and sight-lines)
Which is what all the critics have been saving from the start. Imagine my shock.
I think I want some written apologies from people who’ve been pushing this, some politicians heads on pikes, and the bill for this crap handed to the responsible.
I think Professor Hughes is channelling sir Humphrey there.’It will be a courageous decision rather than a controversial one.’
(A controversial decision will lose you votes. A courageous one, will lose the election)
So why does Brad Wall still plan to double the wind towers in Sask? How big of a hammer do we have to hit these guys over the head with before they see the light?
Nonetheless, governments all over the developed world are committed to this “blunder”.
Stopping the green war on society doesn’t require a posting of the facts against inefficient power production,if that was the case,the windmill subsidies would have stopped long ago.
Unfortunately, what IS required to halt this boondoggle,is political courage,and THAT is in rare supply.
Oh for Pete’s sake.What is the problem??? The Dolt in Morontario will look at this and say,no prob. He will just continue throwing 100s of millions at it,cut welfare,and use the homeless,etc.to blow on the blades. So easy!!! And the brain dead in Mecca West(Hogtown) will bow down to his superior intellect.And money for a study????
They could have spent 10 bucks on a phone call to any Scandanavian country to find out what a farce the bird killers are.
It’s never a blunder, boondoggle, SNAFU or FUBAR when obscene amounts of money favour a select few!
From the first it has been evident that the measures proposed to halt “Global Warming” would be grossly and differentially harmful to those of lower incomes, and were therefore immoral, whether or not they had any effect or any desired effect. I felt that if we were going to stew, we should all stew together. I had some trust in global warming scenarios back then.
Since then we have seen some very rich men get very much richer, from trading in carbon credits, and money extracted from the Ontario taxpayer and from the British taxpayer, that they really couldn’t afford.
So my economic/social forecast has been accurate, even if GW hasn’t emerged and AGW is almost certainly an evil fantasy.
Cue the enviroloons who’ll claim Hughes criticizes wind power because he’s paid by “Big Oil”. What’s the proof that he’s paid by “Big Oil”? The fact that he criticizes wind power.
So basically on the one hand wind power is VERY expensive but on the other hand its not very good.
Is that about it?
And yet Nova Scotia is plowing forward with its wind commitment.
So glad to be leaving this province.
Wind turbine companies in the Pacific Northwest are being paid NOT to produce.
see http://www.FoxNews.com
“an order of magnitude cheaper than the wind scenario.”
Not something to dismiss off hand.. I guess one could reduce the money spent on other GREEN initiatives by an order of magnitude and they would get the Message, or Money sent to the UN, or Education funding, or Health Funding… The fact is that Scientific funding has the “False/Fraud” problem…
What evil lurks in the minds of Communists. I don’t call them Socialists when money is gone & missing from society..They are hard core Communists
Essential elements of green power are never discussed. Electrical power distributions systems require “baselosd” power, and “swing” or peak power. The first includes coal, nuclear, and occasional hydro and nat gas. Swing power is mostly from natural gas turbines.
If you compare power output from green power to electrical demand you quickly realize that green power is neither base or swing power. Mating it with power reqts is worse than mating porcupines.
Important to remember that politicians are never wrong. When was the last time you heard one say,”Wow, we sure were wrong on that policy”? It comes from having that superior intellect that the peons were never endowed with. Common sense ?,….not what they learned in University.
http://quixoteslaststand.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/untitled2.png
But according to British economist and climate doom-sayer Nicky Stern: “…climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
Has Nicky offered his opinion on the findings of his colleague, Professor Hughes?
Bird killing wind power is discredited by the average guy in the street that wants cheap, reliable energy yet the polyticians play follow the leader and double down on this insanity until they reach a point like mcguinty in Ontario who bought in bigtime and now can’t get out and the people of Ontario will pay far into the future for his insanity.