Superb. “Cleanly stated.” The larger the audience this receives, the faster the green glasses can come off. The faster our policies in North America can regain some balance and truth. The number of lies that have circumnavigated all levels of policy and government and hidden taxes to the consumer are staggering and deserve this kind of legal scrutiny. Thank you!
The reality is that wind energy will never stand alone. Ever. Unless we want to end up like the citizens of the UK last winter when their turbines froze and they were forced to buy nuclear powered electricity from France and pay to have it transmitted to UK as their turbines stood frozen for weeks, we must accept that wind is a SUPPLEMENTAL source of energy, and not a very good one. This has been one of the hottest, stillest summers in recent U.S. history, and wind energy is not running the air conditioners. Staggering costs, dependence on federal subsidies to survive, and never there when most needed- that defines the wind industry.
As Draconian measures to protect the planet go, industrial-scale renewable energy has got to be one of the very worst.
The invasion of Industrial wind Turbines must just suck the brains out of people who believe sacrificing our remaining wilderness and wetlands and even our migratory airways is easier than just cutting profligate and inefficient power use.
Thank you to people like BENTEK Energy who have had the integrity to seek and report the truth however unpopular, and to provide the instruments with which ATI can slay the GREED Energy Frankenstein.
We are hugging each other with joy at this courageous initiative.
Its time to launch legal action over the sensless slaughter of endangered Species just for a few watts of so called Green Energy. As the First Nation Representative for Toronto Wind Action someone has to challenge the slaughter of the Bald Eagles, The messangers of the Creator. There was never any consultation with First Nations or any Environmental Group world wide, Its time to end the madness.
David Grey Eagle Sanford
Ironically I was just explaining this to a student doing a thesis on windpower. It was our discussion after a wind town meeting! Why can’t people understand this? Or is it, they just have their ears and minds shut to reality?
Energy from wind turbines is not clean, not green, not cheap and its obsolete. The only return is the money from government subsidies that goes into the pockets of the investors.
Energy from wind is the most extensive sWINDle (use this word-image everywhere in color: blue for the s & le and red for the w i n d) ever mounted in this country.
The wind does not blow consistently, that fact makes wind non-productive.
I have read plenty of studies ranging from the 2005 wind report from Eon Netz to a study done by GE for the state of NY and documents prepared for ISO NE (our grid manager here in New England). All have shown that wind power on the grid creates very serious concerns. We may never get a grid manager to admit it publicly, but there is no doubt, wind energy will always be the unreliable extra that nobody dares to depend on. From a technical standpoint, environmentally, healthwise and financially for the United States in general: Wind energy creates far more problems than it solves. America needs to STOP feeding industrial wind developers subsidy money right now!
[...] the state’s Renewable Energy Standard violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Part 1, released last week, Dr. David Schnare discussed why forcing wind energy on the electrical grid [...]
Well done. There is plenty of data to support the fact that industrial wind has no economic or environmental benefits for society. It is time we learn to conserve and focus research on technologies that are truly green. Industrial wind energy is a scam it benefits only a very few.
This is a very clear message to the wind industry that the clock is ticking. The subsidies and Government apathy in the UK is staggering and with the latest gas and electricity increases, has left 50% of the Scottish population in Fuel Poverty. C.A.T.S. have consistently sought meetings with the Scottish devolved administration only to fall on deaf ears.
Great! Congratulations from your colleagues across the Atlantic from Germany!
We’re trying for years to bring these facts to the public. Unfortunately, there is no German Tradition Institute …
Keep it up!
Kind regards Jutta / EPAW-Germany
[...] that the state’s Renewable Energy Standard violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Part 1, released last week, Dr. David Schnare discussed why forcing wind energy on the electrical grid [...]
This is nothing yet folks. Lately there have been all kinds of solar projects in the works, even one advertised in a Labor paper in St. Louis that was for a night club. The only thing that can be said is that the solar isn’t as ugly, or as dangerous but when it comes to milking the taxpayer for subsidies, it is every bit as effective. It also plays to the construction workers that figure that at least they get their money out of the government, all the while not understanding that long term it will be a loss for them also. The math on a solar site is easy to figure because the number of watt/hours it puts out is listed in the literature and the cost not including installation can easily be determined. Then simply looking at your cost per watt/hour on your electric bill, they can be compared. Sit down first before doing the math.
People don’t understand it because it is rather complicated. “One wind farm will power X homes and/or will reduce our dependence on foreign oil” are appealing sentiments. No matter how false they are. Minds made up are difficult to change and a complex subject like grid management don’t help.
I do, however, think the failure to do exactly what it says on the tin is the aspect one should focus upon. Otherwise you get labled a NIMBY.
Keynesian does not refer to us in Keyneton its a reference to the 1st Baron John Maynard Keynes British economist, strange that we are fighting a possible relative of his in Keyneton over PROPOSED WIND FARM ON HIS LAND economists must run in the family Sue k
…When you read about the electricity generating capacity of a coal or natural gas-fired power plant, or that of a nuclear power plant, the term capacity refers to what such a system—if fully functioning—can deliver on a 24 hour – 7 day a week basis. This is widely understood and we expect the electric power we wish to use at any given time to be there—on demand.
Alternative (wind)
Manufacturers and vendors of alternative electric power systems, such as wind turbines, also use the term “generating capacity”, but with an entirely different meaning.
Please be careful not to overstate the capacity value of coal and nuclear facilities. All thermal generators are SLIGHTLY less efficient (and cannot reach their rated capacity) in hot weather. We have seen AWEA in the past cite this fact so they can claim “fossil generators aren’t perfect either.” To preempt their correction, we should be up front about the true capacity value of thermal generators in summer peaking systems. Coal plants around 85% CV and nuclear around 90%. One key difference is that ambient temperature profiles follow an even and well known pattern on a once-a-day cycle that are easy to plan for.
Compare this to wind’s real capacity value – likely somewhere between 5 and 10% of rated capacity – and that’s across large areas of the country being interconnected, taking advantage of any “leveling effect.” Single wind plants cannot have a real capacity value much above 0% by the definitions capacity value used by RTO/ISOs.
[...] and the resulting actions. Well worth a look at as it mirrors many issues within the UK situation. Click Here. Advertisement LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]
The reason coal and gas seem cheap is the hidden subsidy that we do not charge them, nor require them, to be as clean as nuclear power plants. Coal burning emits at least ten times as much radioactivity as a nuclear plant is permitted to do, per megawatt-hour. This video is entirely correct about wind turbines, which the gas turbine industry likes, because gas turbines take up the slack.
But a proper approach to nuclear power would realise that the way to deal with the plutonium problem is to do what the petroleum industry did with all the dangerously inflammable waste gases that they used to simply flare in the air to get rid of them. They now sell the stuff to pipelines, as fuel. Similarly, plutonium 239, half-life 24,000 years, and therefore not particularly radioactive, can be turned into fission products which, at a rate of about a kilogram per ten million kWh, need only be kept in a suitably shielded location for two or three centuries.
It is perfectly clear from the numbers that the fossil carbon problem can be solved with breeder reactors, and indeed a design existed in 1994, when the Clinton administration, instead of nationalising it, canceled its funding.
Make a Contribution
Take Action with ATP
American Tradition Institute is qualified as a 501c3 organization under IRS rules, and is therefore prohibited from grassroots lobbying. To exercise your right to take action at the state and federal levels on important legislation, please visit American Tradition Partnership here.
[...] Watch the video here. [...]
Very well done.
Will the environmental left and Keynesian economics groupies respond to this video with ad hominem attacks, or do they have something more germane?
Superb. “Cleanly stated.” The larger the audience this receives, the faster the green glasses can come off. The faster our policies in North America can regain some balance and truth. The number of lies that have circumnavigated all levels of policy and government and hidden taxes to the consumer are staggering and deserve this kind of legal scrutiny. Thank you!
The reality is that wind energy will never stand alone. Ever. Unless we want to end up like the citizens of the UK last winter when their turbines froze and they were forced to buy nuclear powered electricity from France and pay to have it transmitted to UK as their turbines stood frozen for weeks, we must accept that wind is a SUPPLEMENTAL source of energy, and not a very good one. This has been one of the hottest, stillest summers in recent U.S. history, and wind energy is not running the air conditioners. Staggering costs, dependence on federal subsidies to survive, and never there when most needed- that defines the wind industry.
As Draconian measures to protect the planet go, industrial-scale renewable energy has got to be one of the very worst.
The invasion of Industrial wind Turbines must just suck the brains out of people who believe sacrificing our remaining wilderness and wetlands and even our migratory airways is easier than just cutting profligate and inefficient power use.
Thank you to people like BENTEK Energy who have had the integrity to seek and report the truth however unpopular, and to provide the instruments with which ATI can slay the GREED Energy Frankenstein.
We are hugging each other with joy at this courageous initiative.
Its time to launch legal action over the sensless slaughter of endangered Species just for a few watts of so called Green Energy. As the First Nation Representative for Toronto Wind Action someone has to challenge the slaughter of the Bald Eagles, The messangers of the Creator. There was never any consultation with First Nations or any Environmental Group world wide, Its time to end the madness.
David Grey Eagle Sanford
Ironically I was just explaining this to a student doing a thesis on windpower. It was our discussion after a wind town meeting! Why can’t people understand this? Or is it, they just have their ears and minds shut to reality?
Energy from wind turbines is not clean, not green, not cheap and its obsolete. The only return is the money from government subsidies that goes into the pockets of the investors.
Energy from wind is the most extensive sWINDle (use this word-image everywhere in color: blue for the s & le and red for the w i n d) ever mounted in this country.
The wind does not blow consistently, that fact makes wind non-productive.
I have read plenty of studies ranging from the 2005 wind report from Eon Netz to a study done by GE for the state of NY and documents prepared for ISO NE (our grid manager here in New England). All have shown that wind power on the grid creates very serious concerns. We may never get a grid manager to admit it publicly, but there is no doubt, wind energy will always be the unreliable extra that nobody dares to depend on. From a technical standpoint, environmentally, healthwise and financially for the United States in general: Wind energy creates far more problems than it solves. America needs to STOP feeding industrial wind developers subsidy money right now!
[...] the state’s Renewable Energy Standard violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Part 1, released last week, Dr. David Schnare discussed why forcing wind energy on the electrical grid [...]
Well done. There is plenty of data to support the fact that industrial wind has no economic or environmental benefits for society. It is time we learn to conserve and focus research on technologies that are truly green. Industrial wind energy is a scam it benefits only a very few.
This is a very clear message to the wind industry that the clock is ticking. The subsidies and Government apathy in the UK is staggering and with the latest gas and electricity increases, has left 50% of the Scottish population in Fuel Poverty. C.A.T.S. have consistently sought meetings with the Scottish devolved administration only to fall on deaf ears.
The time for accountability is fast approaching.
Great! Congratulations from your colleagues across the Atlantic from Germany!
We’re trying for years to bring these facts to the public. Unfortunately, there is no German Tradition Institute …
Keep it up!
Kind regards Jutta / EPAW-Germany
[...] that the state’s Renewable Energy Standard violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Part 1, released last week, Dr. David Schnare discussed why forcing wind energy on the electrical grid [...]
Below are some articles on wind turbine facilities and wind energy
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/51642/dutch-renewables-about-face-towards-nuclear
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53258/examples-wind-power-learn
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/57905/wind-power-and-co2-emissions
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/59747/ge-flexefficiency-50-ccgt-facilities-and-wind-turbine-facilities
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61309/lowell-mountain-wind-turbine-facility-vermont
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61774/wind-energy-expensive
This is nothing yet folks. Lately there have been all kinds of solar projects in the works, even one advertised in a Labor paper in St. Louis that was for a night club. The only thing that can be said is that the solar isn’t as ugly, or as dangerous but when it comes to milking the taxpayer for subsidies, it is every bit as effective. It also plays to the construction workers that figure that at least they get their money out of the government, all the while not understanding that long term it will be a loss for them also. The math on a solar site is easy to figure because the number of watt/hours it puts out is listed in the literature and the cost not including installation can easily be determined. Then simply looking at your cost per watt/hour on your electric bill, they can be compared. Sit down first before doing the math.
@Anne Britton
People don’t understand it because it is rather complicated. “One wind farm will power X homes and/or will reduce our dependence on foreign oil” are appealing sentiments. No matter how false they are. Minds made up are difficult to change and a complex subject like grid management don’t help.
I do, however, think the failure to do exactly what it says on the tin is the aspect one should focus upon. Otherwise you get labled a NIMBY.
Keynesian does not refer to us in Keyneton its a reference to the 1st Baron John Maynard Keynes British economist, strange that we are fighting a possible relative of his in Keyneton over PROPOSED WIND FARM ON HIS LAND economists must run in the family Sue k
[...] To watch Part 1, “Pollution Issues,” click here. [...]
From:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27170
…When you read about the electricity generating capacity of a coal or natural gas-fired power plant, or that of a nuclear power plant, the term capacity refers to what such a system—if fully functioning—can deliver on a 24 hour – 7 day a week basis. This is widely understood and we expect the electric power we wish to use at any given time to be there—on demand.
Alternative (wind)
Manufacturers and vendors of alternative electric power systems, such as wind turbines, also use the term “generating capacity”, but with an entirely different meaning.
Best regards,
Klaus Kaiser
Please be careful not to overstate the capacity value of coal and nuclear facilities. All thermal generators are SLIGHTLY less efficient (and cannot reach their rated capacity) in hot weather. We have seen AWEA in the past cite this fact so they can claim “fossil generators aren’t perfect either.” To preempt their correction, we should be up front about the true capacity value of thermal generators in summer peaking systems. Coal plants around 85% CV and nuclear around 90%. One key difference is that ambient temperature profiles follow an even and well known pattern on a once-a-day cycle that are easy to plan for.
Compare this to wind’s real capacity value – likely somewhere between 5 and 10% of rated capacity – and that’s across large areas of the country being interconnected, taking advantage of any “leveling effect.” Single wind plants cannot have a real capacity value much above 0% by the definitions capacity value used by RTO/ISOs.
[...] and the resulting actions. Well worth a look at as it mirrors many issues within the UK situation. Click Here. Advertisement LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]
The reason coal and gas seem cheap is the hidden subsidy that we do not charge them, nor require them, to be as clean as nuclear power plants. Coal burning emits at least ten times as much radioactivity as a nuclear plant is permitted to do, per megawatt-hour. This video is entirely correct about wind turbines, which the gas turbine industry likes, because gas turbines take up the slack.
But a proper approach to nuclear power would realise that the way to deal with the plutonium problem is to do what the petroleum industry did with all the dangerously inflammable waste gases that they used to simply flare in the air to get rid of them. They now sell the stuff to pipelines, as fuel. Similarly, plutonium 239, half-life 24,000 years, and therefore not particularly radioactive, can be turned into fission products which, at a rate of about a kilogram per ten million kWh, need only be kept in a suitably shielded location for two or three centuries.
It is perfectly clear from the numbers that the fossil carbon problem can be solved with breeder reactors, and indeed a design existed in 1994, when the Clinton administration, instead of nationalising it, canceled its funding.