“They are eco-ruins, Sarah.”
“What’s an eco-ruin Grandpa?”
Well my little darling, let me tell you a story:
I don’t think I’ll mind Eco-ruins. It will be fun to point them out on hikes with kids and explain what it was like back in the late 1900’s. “The best part kids, is that they thought they were smarter than everyone else. They would get so mad if anyone said different. Look at their big schemes now. Every time you pay the government, just remember that its to pay for these rusting monuments.”
Liberals…always tilting at windmills.
When I see new windmills erected I always wonder what would be the cost of dismantling in the near future?
What are Eco-Ruins daddy?
Money wasted on dreams instead of healthcare, schools and roads.
they’ll keep them thar windmills turning, as they help control the bird population, don’t they????
In California they like to keep them spinning if they’re visible from the highway, even if the ‘farm’ doesn’t actually produce any power, it makes people feel good.
Hitchcock’s ‘The Birds’ was filmed in California at Bodega Bay, maybe it makes Californians feel good just to know they’re killing lots of birds…
Those windmills should be pretty easy to knock over with a few well placed sticks.
I should also think the dynamos would also make good target practice.
Locking the blade pitch on “full” and taking off the nuts from the anchor bolts and they will come down from just a moderate breeze.
Eco-Ruins?
Great, soon all of Ontario will be a designated world heritage site.
“Those windmills should be pretty easy to knock over with a few well placed sticks”.
First of, the behemoths being constructed in SW Ont are a far cry from windmills. The largest towers are 600′ of concrete and steel; the foundations of reinforced concrete are similar to that of a 35 story office tower. They have to be seen to be appreciated, but they are not your grandfather’s windmill. Someday under a more responsibe government, the towers will be torn down, at taxpayers expense, long after the wind companies have disappeared. This bill will far exceed the construction costs. As for the concrete foundations, it is hard to imagine them ever being returned to cropland. This is the true legacy of Dalton McGuinty.
It bears mentioning this gross waste of public funding and expropriation of land for these doomed wind farms are a direct initiative of UN Agenda 21 planning in your local or regional government. Increases in energy and water utilities are also results of agenda 21 tampering with these vital services. It’s all about “sustainability”.
Agenda 21 co-chair Maurice Strong defined the agenda’s cor directive this way: ” the legal concept of private property is the primary stumbling block to sustainability. No resource is sutainable as long as there is private property”.
Educate yourself and get active against this fascist agenda operating at a local level in your city/region/province:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugaQzc7OpmY
It’s pretty bad when even Liberals see the danger in removal of property rights under the green agenda.
And don’t forget Martin that there is no fire service in any of these areas that have the equipment or training to fight a fire should one break out in the nacelle. The nacelle contains over 100 liters of oil.
“They will say that a mechanism called the “greenhouse effect,” was postulated long ago (~1824 by Joseph Fourier) and gained adherents in the late 20th century. They will say that the theory was seemingly invalidated by the decrease in global temperatures from 1940-1975, but that the adherents patched this up by explaining the cooling with pollution, specifically sulfur, from industry”
Ummmm… The “greenhouse effect” isn’t a “postulate” or a “theorem”… It’s a real, tangible, repeatable phenomenon… Some (most) would call it a scientific law… It’s the reason I have fresh – in February – Alberta grown (hot house) tomatoes to put in my salad this evening…
If we deniers start discounting/mocking real science, as the author of the article does, we’re screwed… I don’t want people like him on my side… Thanks anyway…
Evans, the “greenhouse effect” is physically impossible. 98% of all solar radiation capable of being absorbed by atmospheric CO2 C to O bonds occurs at 200 ppm. We are well above that at 390 ppm. BTW, plants die at 200 ppm CO2.
Time to re-read your college physics text book. I also challenge you to find one atmospheric physicist who subscribes to the “Greenhouse Effect” theory.
Yes Evans, it’s the CO2 you add to the air in a greenhouse which keeps the warmth in, and not the pane of glass covering the whole thing.
They are monuments to Liberal Fascism.
http://green-agenda.com/agenda21.html
——————–
Agenda 21 spreads it tentacles from Governments, to federal and local authorities, and right down to community groups. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21: ”Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises to formulate ‘a Local Agenda 21.’ Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies.” – Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1.3
Interestingly, in April 1991, fourteen months before Earth Summit, Prince Charles held a private two day international conference aboard the royal yacht Britannia, moored off the coast of Brazil. His goal was to bring together key international figures in an attempt to achieve a degree of harmony between the various countries that would gather at the Summit. Al Gore was present, along with senior officials from the United Nations and the World Bank.
At the summit 179 nations officially signed Agenda 21 and many more have followed since. Nearly 12,000 local and federal authorities have legally committed themselves to the Agenda. In practice this means that all their plans and policies must begin with an assessment of how the plan or policy meets the requirements of Agenda 21, and no plans or policies are allowed to contradict any part of the Agenda. Local authorities are audited by UN inspectors and the results of the audits are placed on the UN website. You can see how many local authorities in your country were bound by Agenda 21 in 2001 here. The number has increased significantly since then.
ILLUMINATING.
Skip, you’re an idiot. I never said that CO2 was causing a greenhouse effect on the planet. Only that the “greenhouse effect”, in and of itself, is a very real phenomenon. If that confuses you, go ponder it while sitting in a greenhouse…
Richard, the irony of the situation is that greenhouses don’t heat by means of the “greenhouse effect”. They heat by restricting convection, trapping warm air inside. This is proven by the fact, that if a greenhouse gets too warm you open panels in the roof to let the hot air escape.
The radiative trapping mechanism, aka “greenhouse effect” plays a negligible role in the heating of an actual greenhouse. Here is a link that discusses an actual experiment which demonstrated this fact: http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/meteorology/6032/Greenhouse-Theory-Disproved-a-Century-Ago
As to the disposal of abandoned wind turbines, I doubt it will present a problem. There will be valuable metal to scavenge from the generators themselves. The towers could be truncated and made into grain storage bins, seeing as most of them around here are on cropland anyway. If it was desired to totally remove them, the tower could be cut free of the base and felled. To dispose of the huge and basically worthless concrete base, simply dig a deep hole adjacent to the base, and tumble it in. Once it’s below the tillable part of the soil, it’s no longer a problem.
Oxygen is a greenhouse gas.
That is, it is generated by plants growing in a greenhouse while absorbing CO2.
And water vapour. Lot of it produced from the irrigation.
“They heat by restricting convection, trapping warm air inside. This is proven by the fact, that if a greenhouse gets too warm you open panels in the roof to let the hot air escape”…
Which pretty much proves the point… You are hereby banished to your granny’s greenhouse to ponder why you think having folks deny the legitimate heating of a greenhouse will help our cause…
gordinkneehill “simply dig a deep hole adjacent to the base, and tumble it in”
The bases for the larger turbines contain over 1000 tonnes of steel and concrete. Some of the IWT sites in Ont. propose up to 160 turbines. That is a lot of holes to dispose of the garbage, before cropping can start again.
Just who will pay for this dismantling? The scrap value of the metal will attract disposal companies, but the bases are a dead loss. As I said the taxpayer will be on the hook for this; most of the wind outfits lack liability bonds sufficient to pay for dismantling. I suspect many of the sites are permanently lost to cropping, and almost all of them are on Class 1 agicultural land. Some of the very best cropland in Canada.
Martin knows of what he speaks.
Richard, of course the greenhouse effect exits. The error by the warmists is to assume that the atmosphere functions as a greenhouse, which it does not.
“Richard, of course the greenhouse effect exits. The error by the warmists is to assume that the atmosphere functions as a greenhouse, which it does not.”
Agreed. And for our side to assert that the greenhouse effect “doesn’t exist” (as stated in the article) is just as big of an error… If we’re going to win this debate we need to do it with reason and facts. If we go too far the other way with the rhetoric, we’re no better than the warmist nutbars…
Well, Richard, I will try one more time before writing you off as a total moron.
“Greenhouse Effect” as used to describe the radiative trapping mechanism whereby CO2 and other gases, most notably water vapor, cause warming of the atmosphere, is, simply put, a misnomer.
Greenhouses don’t work by that mechanism. If it is in play at all in an actual greenhouse, the radiative trapping mechanism is completely swamped by the convective trapping mechanism. Disrupt the convective trapping mechanism, and a greenhouse, or a tightly closed-up automobile, soon cools to near the ambient outside temperature.
Climate skeptics, for the most part, do not deny that a CO2-based radiative trapping mechanism exists. We have trouble with the following claims made by the climate-science “team”: warming is unprecedented, warming is exclusively anthropogenic, and warming is catastrophic.
Those false claims are based upon a positive-feedback mechanism built into the computer models used to predict climate, and which has not been demonstrated to exist.
So you have an erroneous name for a real and natural process that exists in our climate system, but which is far from being the dominant process.
Ahem, I believe we were talking about wind turbines?
Hate to belabor the issue,however this is a hot topic in these parts.
Anyone who has a medical emergency or sustains an injury while preforming maintenance on these things may as well kiss his ass goodbye. There is no way EMS has the capability of getting them down. Eventually the turkey vultures will clean up the mess.
Ralph “Eventually the turkey vultures will clean up the mess.”
But they will be dead.
Why all the optimism ? (I read too much Steyn)
More likely our grunting descendants will be
bowing down to pray to them. Hopefully whatever
myth they invent will be more satisfying than
the truth.
Evans, there is a hell of a difference between some inconsequential molecules of CO2 already saturated with radiation and a pane of glass a centimeter or more thick.
In fact all earth’s atmospheric gases account for about 30 degrees of warming versus a vacuum or your skull. The impact of CO2 is utterly negligible.
“Well, Richard, I will try one more time before writing you off as a total moron.”
Looks as though you’ll be leaving disappointed…
“”Greenhouse Effect” as used to describe the radiative trapping mechanism whereby CO2 and other gases, most notably water vapor, cause warming of the atmosphere, is, simply put, a misnomer.”
Agreed!
“…So you have an erroneous name for a real and natural process that exists in our climate system, but which is far from being the dominant process.”
Incorrect. The name is accurate in that it refers to what actually happens inside the closed environment of a “greenhouse”. The leftard nutbars, however, hijacked the term and tried to make it mean something else. You drank the koolaid and you’re using the term as they want you to use it, letting them set the terms of debate. You can over analyze it till your pointy head hurts but regardless of all your high mindedness and “open window” theories, the fact remains; Greenhouses get warm enough, during the Canadian winter, to grow tomatoes in January… The same tomatoes that were harvested and will be added to my salad this evening… In February…
Now, when someone tells me something doesn’t exist, even though I’m currently looking at the results of what they say doesn’t exist, I have to politely ask them to go frig their hat.
Gordon, go frig your hat.
Richard Evans “Greenhouses get warm enough, during the Canadian winter, to grow tomatoes in January”
You ever see the gas bill for one of those – brutal. I guess methane is a greenhouse gas but I don’t think that’s what they mean.
“Evans, there is a hell of a difference between some inconsequential molecules of CO2 already saturated with radiation and a pane of glass a centimeter or more thick.
In fact all earth’s atmospheric gases account for about 30 degrees of warming versus a vacuum or your skull. The impact of CO2 is utterly negligible.”
*munches on his tomato
Ummmm…. Skip, dude, you do know that the “greenhouse effect” existed before all the global warming hysteria right? Right? Greenhouses have existed since the time they were able to manufacture flat panes of glass… Go ahead and ask our host how greenhouses have been used on the prairies for the past 200 years… She’s probably got archived photos tucked away somewhere…
Richard, evidently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. You have managed to read my posts, and draw inferences that are polar opposites to what I really wrote.
You really should join the Warmista camp. They need people with your keen grasp of the nonexistent.
Are there any firemen or fire chiefs out there to answer a question?
At this end of the province, of Ontario, large arrays of solar panels installed on shed or barn roofs are the lastest nutsy-eco idea. Someone told me that water can’t be poured on the electricity producing panels if a fire would happen…even at night when large spotlights are used by firefighters the spotlights produce enough light for the solar panels to generate electricity…true or not?
Martin- In a lot of the contracts buried in the fine print is that it is the landowner/farmer who will be responsible for the decommissioning of the turbine. Local property standard bylaws should see to that. So I hope all those people set aside ample amounts of the upfront bribe money for this and for the defence of litigation on them for health effects/ land value loss etc.
“a pane of glass a centimeter or more thick”
Holy crap, that’s as thick as my glasses.
“Richard, evidently reading comprehension is not your strong suit…”
Maybe I missed something… Are you saying that we agree that greenhouses are warmer inside than they are outside, and that this is a scientific fact, and that anyone that disagrees with said fact in an attempt to discredit the warmists does us a disservice in our attempt to give accurate information to the public?
Really? Cause I’m not getting that from either the article or your response to it…
Ok, here it goes for those of you who got here on the short bus…
The article in question attempts to discredit the eco-freak view of “greenhouse effect” without noting that there really is a real and true “greenhouse effect” different from what the leftist nutbars say… That’s all good and well till Dr. FruitFly sets a 12 year old in an actual greenhouse for 15 minutes (all on taxpayer funded camera) and then asks said kid if she was warmer (all on taxpayer funded camera). He’ll hold up the article from our side and ask the kid if it’s legit… The kid will say the article’s a lie because he got warmer… Because the “greenhouse effect” exists…
If you idiots say something “doesn’t exist” without making any differentiation between the factual and the fabricated, those jag-offs are going to have you for lunch. As stated previously… I don’t want you on my side…
Seriously… Dr. FruitFly created a website killing Santa, do you think he’s above sticking a kid in a greenhouse for 15 minutes? Do you idiots really think that you aren’t going to be challenged on your positions?
One only need look at Spain and compare to Ontario as to the efffects of wholeheartedly (and stupidly), going all “green/alternative” for electrical generation. Morons as are all the voters who gave that arrogant Liberal (_i_)hole McGuinty a 3rd term.!
Parker Gallant has, through his excellent series “The Ontario Power Trip”, (National Post),shown exactly what has been happening. His writings and my personal observations of 2 yrs living in Barrie, Ontario were enough for me to quit my job of 11 years and move my family back to Calgary last yr.
The end result as is beconming clear to all is that Ontarians, in the coming months, will be forced to anally accept a significantly larger pce of lumber than expected.
Andrew Weaver is now in serious damage control, as usual our breathless and brainless media have run to his latest prediction that “oilsands are good” , burning oilsands oil will only raise the planets temp by 3 degrees, but if as randy Andy says we burn coal, well then we will raise the worlds temp a whopping 14 degrees, and we will all die and burn and. Pity the ill informed reporters whose jobs make them sit through these idiots prognostications of BS. This is now the major butt covering times for these SCAM artists, their lies have not come true, the wreckage is all around them and they are still young enough that they will have to endure the shame of their grand tulip bulb scheme.
Funny, last time I saw Umberto Eco he was in great shape…
“Some of the very best cropland in Canada.
Posted by: Martin at February 19, 2012 4:46 PM”
hey marty, just like the huge aquifer north of Tranna that YOUR friend mikey ‘six toes’ harris decided to cover over with all sorts of development.
google it.
If there is any justice the likes of David Suzuki and Dalton McGuinty will be hung from these rusting hulks until they are dead. We’ve been fleeced of our taxes to fund these projects that will no doubt make these two bastards rich. I would rather they not live long enough to enjoy their ill gotten gains.
Tombstones of the now living zombie politicians, that lightened to the Jim Jones environmentalists of the day. Drinking the dreams, from the Hemlock of scientism. The new religion of the Left.
The landowner has ‘absolute liability’; be it a wind turbine or oil well on your property in Ontario, should the energy company walk away from it it’s the landowner’s baby to decommission. In Chatham Kent, where my mother lives amidst the “red light district’ (Night time blinking lights) farming goes on quite close to the turbine. The base is buried under 20 feet or so of soil. There is a road way to each turbine. Not a lot of productive farm land is taken up but when you multiply the hundreds proposed and currently standing, it adds up. Where a real loss is happening is in property values of neighbours who do not have any direct revenue coming from a turbine.But then one cannot see the turbines from downtown Hogtown so what does it matter?
Note to Scar:
Many greenhouses here in Alberta are closely adjacent to NG processing plants, capturing heat that would otherwise be wasted.
Paul
Yeah…. basically only provides the Greenhouses with the necessary light for photo-synthesis….they need heat from a furnace or other means. Douglas Point features green houses to utilize the waste heat….a common feature of nuke plants in temperate climates.
Decommissioning the bird blenders…The masts are fairly light steel,
the blades are composite material….dead loss…land fill.
The massive 1000 ton bases will be man-made outcrops to be worked around/over or buried (man made hills….digging them down is much more costly than the land recovered…..potential foundation for a structure….