Fracking saves Thousands of Lives in USA

A few days ago I posted about how Dr Jim Hansen and his colleague Pushker A. Kharecha have produced a ground breaking paper showing how nuclear power has literally saved millions of lives. (Post HERE) (Paper HERE)

I became aware from their research that while nuclear is clearly a life saver, the replacement of coal generation with Gas will also save many lives. Due to the adoption of fracking in the USA, literally thousands of lives have been saved. Also a huge amount of illness, both serious and minor has been prevented.

As part of their research Hansen and Kharecha refenced a peer reviewed paper published in the "The Lancet" (The Lancet is a Medical journal of unquestionable integrity)

The paper "Electricity generation and health" by Anil Markandya & Paul Wilkinson.( Copy Of Paper HERE) gives us figures for the number of deaths from different electrical generation fuels.

Here is the crucial table.

Notice that the table indicates that the death toll from using coal powered generation is around ten times that of gas. So for every TW/hr of power generation transferred from coal to gas will save the lives of about 22 people.

Now look at these Annual Energy generation figures from the EIA in the USA. (Link HERE)

Total USA energy generation has only increased by about 4% from 2003 to 2012.

But notice how gas use (due to Fracking) has doubled from 2003 to 2012. Due to this increase in gas usage, coal use has fallen by 30%.

Nothing else is responsible for this. Nuclear is stationary and will remain so until new plant is built. Renewables are shown as minor bit part players, virtually irrelevant to the total output.

So in 2012, Fracking caused a reduction in coal generation of around 600 TW/hr.

This equates (for 2012 alone) to a reduction in the death toll of around 13200 people.

If you look at the table you will also see that Fracking have caused truly massive falls in serious and minor illness associated with coal powered electrical generation.

Couple that to a 60% GHG emission reduction for those 600 TW/hr and you find the USA is the only country in the world to significantly reduce its GHG emissions. All due to Fracking.

Clearly, while nuclear generation is still the most healthy option, Gas (from Fracking or otherwise) comes a close second. Wind and Solar, even after close on to 20 years of huge subsidies in the USA are still incapable of making a significant impact on electrical generation.

Next (or maybe next) I will explore how many Germans are going to be killed by the replacement of the safe and reliable nuclear  with dirty lignite burning coal stations.

Safe In their Hands

Now then, my grubby little Englanders, I want to ask you a few pertinent questions.

• Would you (with your family) get into a plane where the pilot was confident but lacked any formal training?
• Would you let a person install a gas boiler in your house when you knew that the installer only had the vaguest notion of what they were doing?
• How about putting your kids onto a school bus where the driver could recite the highway code but had never actually driven a bus before?

Well how about this then. 

Lets look at Energy Policy. You know that boring old subject about keeping the lights on, people in jobs, old folk NOT freezing to death etc. etc.

Particularly let us look at those who have (or aspire to hold) the title of "Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change",

Milliband, Huhne and Davey all studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics.

Sadly it looks like they wouldn't know a Joule from a Seivert.

I should point out there is a rumour that Huhne might now be able to change a light bulb (on a good day). They teach you a lot of new skills in prison these days.

Meanwhile the current Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Caroline Flint, has a BA in American Literature and History combined with Film Studies.

So while she probably could recite the script from the Chine Syndrome she might confuse Spinning Reserve with some sort of pool of political propaganda.

There is not a one engineer on the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee.

But there is some good news.

Luckily there is John Robertson MP. He did a technical apprenticeship for Post Office Telephones and is the sole technically qualified person on the committee. However poor old John tends to be a lone voice as the only informed advocate of nuclear power.

Seriously I'm not making this up.

One of the most urgent and life changing aspects of our society (aka Energy policy) is being decided by a bunch of over confident (dare I say arrogant) buffoons who know little or nothing about the subject they are in charge of.

God help us all.

(Hat tip to commentator "phasing" on this Telegraph Article )

The Damage Done by Wind Power

The above picture shows a turbine blade that ended up in a daycare centre in Oklahoma during a recent tornado. (thanks to @Ginger_Zee on twitter).

But this post is not about how turbines are being built too close to peoples homes.

Neither is it about people being driven from their homes or seeing their one major asset (their home) devalued.

Neither is it about greedy landowners backed by ruthless corporations making illgotten fortunes for no effort. Except for the effort that is expended in selling out their neighbours.

Finally this post is not about how utterly useless IWT's are for providing dispatchable electricity.

This post is about how public perception regarding the scientific debate regarding Global Warming has been utterly poisoned by the disgrace that is the wind turbine fraud.

I have spoken and corresponded with many people who have had their lives impacted by the sleasy gold rush that epitomises wind energy. Initially these folk have no idea how ineffective, costly and down right counter productive IWT's are. Then due to the imminence of this blight
appearing in their neighbourhood, they do some reading. I expect they are mostly seeking reassurance. Sadly they get none. The transparent spin from the wind industry soon gets blown away. Then they see the ugly truth.

The wind turbine scam is all about fanatics, corporate and individual greed and has little or nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide emissions.

They see the zealots, the crooks and the carpet baggers all lining up and bleating about global warming as some super justification for their arrogance and excess. The people (ordinary bog standard two kids and a mortgage people - the folks so hated by the zealots) end up despising the sham.

But beyond this justifiable rejection of greed and bigotry, they also reject the science used as a prop by the wind turbine carpet baggers.

The end result is that the science surrounding Global Warming is now as despised and derided as the wind turbine scam itself. Which is much more than a shame.

We all need to keep an open mind on global warming and not let the poisonous con job that is the wind industry turn us against the science that the wind industry has so ruthlessly exploited for their own ends.

Global Warming may need us to take (useful) action, then nobody would happier than me if it were proved to be wrong.

But I think it would be foolish to disregard the current scientific opinion simply because of the ugly wind turbine fraud that has exploited it.

Pandora's Promise

"What if what you have been thinking all this time - is wrong?"

This film was made by Robert Stone. He is a multi-award-winning, Oscar-nominated and Emmy-nominated documentary filmmaker. (Biography HERE ) His film, Pandoras Promise has received enormous accolades. In preview showings it has caused a storm. Indulge me. Watch the trailer.

The film relates to a journey of discovery  made  by Stone and a number of very prominent and very famous environmentalists. That the journey they question their preconceptions about nuclear power.

It is, I am told not only an eye opener but is a powerful moving and ground breaking expose against the ignorance and pseudo science that surrounds the environmental lobby today.

If you want to read a fistful of reviews go to the bottom of This Link - The unofficial guide to Pandoras Promise They are quite enlightening.

General USA Release June 12th 2013. Due for UK release later in the year ( I'll let you know when I find out)

Hansen and Nuclear Power

I expect you have heard of Jim Hansen. Until recently he was head of the NASA Goddard Research Institute. It is fair to say he is the leading proponent of of the concept of AGW (Anthropological Global Warming).

Here is a blindingly brief resume of Jim Hansen the scientist (abbreviated from HERE)

Education
BA with highest distinction (Physics and Mathematics), University of Iowa, 1963
MS (Astronomy), University of Iowa, 1965
Visiting student, Inst. of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto & Dept. of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan, 1965-1966
Ph.D. (Physics), University of Iowa, 1967

Primary leading roles
Director: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Adjunct Professor: Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University
Manager: GISS Planetary and Climate Programs

Then there are over thirty awards (yes - over thirty!). The particular award which emphasises the track of this post is a 2008 award - Rachel Carson Award for Integrity in Science.

Whether you agree with AGW or not you have to admit Hansen is a highly gifted scientist. I hope you agree that whether you like his scientific stance or not he is undoubtedly someone whose opinions and scientific theories should be thoroughly listened to.

The likes of Green Peace and FOE love Hansen's pro AGW stance because it unintentionally plays perfectly to their luddite anti-technological bigotry.

But things get very tricky when it comes to Hansens forceful support for Nuclear Power. We then see the bizarre and laughable descent into the usual spiteful character assassination and pseudo science that so infects the likes of Green Peace and FOE.

Here's a few quotes from recent Hansen interview (fully in context)
[quote]
it is very unfortunate that a number of nations have indicated that they’re going to phase out nuclear power… The truth is, what we should do is use the more advanced nuclear power. Even the old nuclear power is much safer than the alternatives.
[unquote]

[quote]
The bottom line seems to be that it is not feasible in the foreseeable future to phase out coal unless nuclear power is included in the energy mix.
[unquote]

[quote]
"I think that next-generation, safe nuclear power is an option which we need to develop. 
[unquote]

But for our nuclear denier's there is worse to come.

Hansen being a bright bloke, thought he would calculate just how many people have been SAVED by nuclear power. Read about it (Scientific American - HERE) and (Daily Kos - HERE).

Here's a graph from the paper:

Here's a small section from the paper's abstract:

[quote]
Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning.
[unquote]


Oh BOY - Did that cause the Green luddites to throw their toys out of the pram. See this pathetic diatribe (GreenLeft - HERE)

To the Green luddites Hansen is now a bit of a Janus. On one hand he is a champion of the planet, a hero and an environmental leader. But on the other hand he is a charlatan and incompetent who falsely promotes the demon of nuclear Power. He has even been called a shill (really!)

You have to laugh. Not one of these buffoons shooting at Hansen can hold a candle to his scientific rigour. I would really REALLY be interested (and probably amused) to see them try and disprove his findings using science rather than innuendo and character assasination.

But I won't be holding my breath while I wait.

An Emerging Supermarket Cartel?

Today, the major supermarkets are all "price matching".

They are all deeply concerned about getting a good deal for us. They apparently want to ensure that down trodden grubby little Englanders like you and me can stretch their pennies as far as possible.

Yea right.

Look at this from a different angle.

Company X states that it will price match anything from Companies W,Y and Z. For the consumer this propaganda reads as "Shop with us, we are the nice guys at company X - if our prices are higher than elsewhere we'll take a hit and match prices.

Hmmmm... nice guys eh?

Now look at the hidden corporate Company to Company sub-text

"If you undercut us we will reduce our price to match yours.  It does not matter how you have reduced your price, we will match it. Even if it means we sell at a loss. Remember we are a huge company. Cause us too much pain and we will cause you an enormous amount of damage. But only if you try to out-compete us. Follow our pricing and keep within an acceptable limit then we can maintain an air of competition. We can all clean up.

But, if you want a price war we will will give you a war.

Who wants a war? Especially when it could cut profits.

Instead in practice we get this.

Company X tweaks a product price upwards slightly. So initially, they are more expensive than their peer group. When challenged, they price match. Consumers are conned into thinking this is because company X is being "competitive". Then the other companies, one by one, follow suite and up their price. We end up with a transparent price hike for no reason other than company X wants to increase it's profit margin.

Then it can all start again.

This scenario is an open cartel. Normally cartels are closed conspiracies. (i.e. companies secretly conspire to fix prices). In the above context the conspiracy is all done by innuendo and propaganda. But it is still a cartel.

Happy shopping - and watch out for those "good deals".

(apologies for the long absense - I have been otherwise engaged.)

Love & Kisses
Billothewisp

The Coming Dark Age - Revisited

I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read these articles in the Independent today (HERE) and (HERE) In these articles the outgoing head of OfGem moans about the looming "Energy Gap" and inevitable price hikes that are on their way. Evidently, we are now so far down the road the only option we have to potentially avert the crisis is to build gas plant using expensive imported gas.

Dare I point out that I first blogged about this in 2010 ( HERE ) and I was a long way from being the first. In the industry this has been an issue for the last 10 years. Both of the last governments (but particularly the last Labour administration) are guilty of letting this drift. Due to the time scales the looming energy supply catastrophe can only now be potentially offset by gas - whatever the cost.

That AND possibly keeping old and decrepit coal plant running.

What a state to get into.

All because vacuous politicians have preferred to pursue the fools gold of renewables and simultaneously shun new nuclear.

But nuclear companies are no different than any other large ruthless corporate entity. Worldwide today, it is a lucrative sellers market for nuclear manufacturers. So now, when we are at or past crisis point the politico's are being held to ransom. The nuclear companies are demanding their pound of flesh. What a turn around.

We are told that "power cuts are unlikely" This is almost certainly just more wishful thinking.
Our generation capacity is going to fall to almost parity to what is needed. Any outage is going to stretch things to breaking point. A large outage in a serious cold snap or a double break down is going to see serious and widespread blackouts.

What will the politico's do? I reckon they will try and wing it. They will hope for mild weather and no breakdowns. God help us all.

This is terrible.

All of that money! All of that national resource wasted on the useless unreliable wind. All of the prevarication and navel gazing over nuclear and shale gas. All of that "Do Nothing and Hope It goes away" attitude.

At best the end result will be a stretched and unreliable power supply dominated by ancient coal and expensive imported gas, with wind adding little but a feel good factor for the technically illiterate.

Of course there will a diminishing contribution from our old first generation nuclear plant as well.
Inevitably this is going to be forced into an ever extended lifespan and run flat-out just to save the asses of our great and good.

What a waste. What a scandal.

A Gift Horse in the Mouth

I hardly need to say that the deliberate palming off of horse meat as beef is illegal. Or that this deception has also been  done for the worst of motives (i.e -.a quick and dirty profit). 

So my next question is: What else has gone into the mincer? 

If these criminals can get away with passing off a completely different animal species as beef how many thousands of sub standard or condemned cattle carcasses have also been processed?

Bearing in mind this was a criminal activity, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find meat that was actually unfit for pet-food (let alone people) got put into the mincer as well.

Clearly the European inspection process has been cursory or non existent. After all this suspect beef was  actually from the WRONG species. Any inspection process that misses that must be a farce.

Look at a parallel with the drugs trade (both legal and illegal).

Alcohol is strictly regulated. People may die from over consumption but not from illegal additives.

Compare that to the illegal drug trade. Anything and everything gets added to bolster the drug dealers profit. Money is the only focus. The health of the drug takers is of no concern.

The difference between a criminal dealing in drugs and one dealing in suspect meat is paper thin.

Anyone who believes the pathetic government spin that this crime was simply a matter of packet mis-labelling is living in a dream world.

Huhne Pleads Guilty

No, I am not going to belatedly go on about Huhne and his last minute switch to a guilty plea. Instead I will simply refer you to This Post over at Fenbeagles blog. While you are there have a look at Fenbeagle's blog in it's entirety. This guy's creative flair and cutting satire is awesome. Go there and enjoy.

UK Gas Prices: The Rip-Off Continues

So, as the dust settles over the last gas price rise we can look back and see if the reasoning behind it was sound.

As I remember the last price rise  (of around 10%) was to....

• Cope with rising wholesale prices,
• Pay for some unspecified rise in costs associated with gas transport
• Pay for renewal of capital equipment.

It was (I am told) absolutely nothing to do with raising huge and unreasonable profits.

Hmmmmm

Wholesale prices

Look at this graph.

(graph from Catalyst Energy Solutions. Here)

The graph looks a  bit of a dogs breakfast because it show several years of wholesale (or spot) gas prices. Each colour is for a different year. Notice that the wholesale price to when the graph ends (Oct 2012) is little changed since December 2010.

So even from this you have to ask: Why the price rise? But look back further. Notice the whole sale price COLLAPSED at the end of 2009, so the rise they keep droning on about actually arises from a large price decrease in 2009. Wholesale prices in Oct 2012 are not much different to Jan 2009.

So, has the gas price today in January 2013 massively risen since the end point on the graph (Oct 2012) ?

No. The wholesale price today  is much the same as the end of October which is much the same as January 2009. But it gets worse. If you go even further back, beyond this graphs resolution you find the wholesale gas price was similar or higher than today way back to March 2008. (see future post)

Of course, wholesale gas only accounts for about 55% of the retail price anyway. So if the wholesale price is flat, then to get a retail price rise of 10%  the price of gas transport and customer servicing must have risen by 22%. Wow!

Even though these companies then go on to whine about making large capital investments they still manage to produce an enormous, and rising year on year profit. Clearly the concept of using your profits to invest in the future is alien to the Utilities.

Why can they do this? Because rather than operating as competing companies, their operation looks more like that of a cartel. They pretend to compete yet actually protect their combined markets at the cost of the consumer, and the government lets them get away with it.

The words “arrogant rip-off” come to mind.

Windfall. A film by Laura Israel

Laura Israel
Director 

Released in 2011 Windfall is a film about the effects of wind turbine deployment on a small community in upstate New York. The documentary  has won a host of awards and has met with huge critical acclaim. I've listed some of the awards and plaudits after the trailer and synopsis below.

So you may well ask: Have I seen it? You may be surprised that my answer is no. So far  I have only seen the trailer.

The reason I am blogging about it somewhat prematurely it is due to recommendation from a trusted friend of mine over the pond. She demanded  I see it and also tell my friends to see it as well.

I trust her judgement. So as the film, has started doing the rounds over here, then perhaps if you get a chance, you may consider having a look yourself. Sadly, I expect I'm going to have to fork out and buy a copy.

(Where Oh Where is this evil coal/oil/nuclear conspiracy that is supposed to be funding blogs like mine? Especially when you need to spend a few quid?)

Official Trailer: Windfall

Synopsis

Wind power …it’s sustainable…it burns no fossil fuels… it produces no air pollution. What’s more,it cuts down dependency on foreign oil. That’s what the residents of Meredith, New York first thought when a wind developer looked to supplement the rural farm town’s failing economy with a farm of their own – that of 40 industrial wind turbines. WINDFALL, Laura Israel’s, richly photographed, feature-length film, documents how this proposal divides the people of Meredith, as they fight over the future of their community. Attracted at first to the financial incentives that would seemingly boost their dying economy, the townspeople grow increasingly alarmed as they discover the impacts that the 400-foot high windmills slated for Meredith would bring to their community. Israel also turns her camera on Tug Hill, New York, another small upstate town, where wind power is a done deal. Tug Hill’s 195 wind turbines create non-stop low frequency “whomping” sounds and strobe-like effects, resulting in health effects on the people living among them. With wind development in the United States growing annually at 39 percent, WINDFALL, is an eye-opener that should be required viewing for anyone concerned about the environment and the future of renewable energy.

Awards, Accolades

Reviews

New York Post

New York Times

Huffington Post

Wind Turbine Reliability and that Elephant Again

A detailed  analysis of the reliability and life span of on-shore and off-shore turbines has been produced by Professor Hughes of Edinburgh University. Because his findings are so controversial the paper has been independently statistically verified.

Far from having a lifespan of 25 years as promoted by the wind industry, it looks like the lifespan will be more like 10-15 years. Furthermore, during that 15 year lifespan, the capacity factor will progressively diminish.

Professor Hughes paper is Here
The Telegraph has also produced an article on this Here.

Professor Hughes suggests that even the wind industry has not yet realised it has this problem. Personally I think they have known about it for years.

I first blogged about the massive ongoing gearbox reliability issue (Here) This was based on this article Here. But it is not just the gearboxes. Since then we have had the grouting failure that has affected almost all offshore turbines in Europe, with many shifting on their base (Here). But these failures are just the headlines.

Yet the wind industry are in denial. Take the  pathetic bluster from RenewablesUK in the Telegraph article.

[quote]
...so it’s very much in their interests to make sure that their turbines are maintained… to an optimum level, which includes upgrading as the technology improves. 
[unquote]

Anyone running machinery should optimally maintain it! But it will still wear out.

The question here is : What is the lifespan WHEN you optimally maintain it.

It sounds like the wind industry is back to relying on miracles. You know, something (as yet unknown) will come along that will make it all better. Don't forget wind turbines are supposed to be a mature technology. Sadly, whatever you upgrade to, you are simply not going to beat the laws of physics, and every upgrade is yet  another capital cost.

As any rotating machine ages it requires more maintenance. Eventually it reaches a stage where the machine requires so much maintenance it is classified as Beyond Economic Repair (BER). In other words, it is clapped out. This happens to ALL machinery. It happens to Jumbo jets, nuclear power stations, buses, cars AND wind turbines.

The wind industry propaganda has declared that BER for a turbine is 25 years. The truth, as proven by Prof. Hughes, is that the BER is reached in about 15 years.

Wind Turbines are capital intensive. The whole of their potential profitability is solely dictated by the total amount of energy they can produce over their life time. If their lifespan to BER is lowered then the possibility of them being profitable without an enormous subsidy decreases, especially later on in their life cycle.

You will also find that from a DECC document (Here) that current wind turbine annual maintenance costs range from £12000 to £110,000 per turbine. The amount is heavily dependant on the status of the warranty and consequently its age. As it gets older the maintenance cost sky rockets – until you reach BER.

With a decreasing capacity factor and an increasing maintenance cost over time, the money making years for a wind turbine are the first 5 years. Then its downhill all the way.

Turbines are medium term cash cows for their corporate owners. When they approach BER, either because the subsidy is cut or they blow up their second gearbox, they will be sold on. Then when the second/third/fourth company has run them into the ground they will be sold on again for scrap and  the  valuable components stripped out. Then they will be abandoned. In situ.

When the bailiffs finally turn up demanding the derelict  be cleaned up they will find that the “owner” is a post office box in Belize.
Guess who will get the final clean up bill.

Wind and Solar Renewables:- The German Experience

This is about a shocking German report from RWI Essen – the leading German economic research institution

The link to the report (in English) is  Here
The English version of the RWI-Essen website is Here
The wikipedia page on RWI Essen is Here

Why is this foreign report important to us?

In the UK we are at a point of crisis regarding future electrical energy generation. Decisions that should have been made 20 years ago have been avoided.  Arguably, whatever is now decided comes too late. Nothing short of a miracle will now prevent power cuts within the next 10 - 15 years. But unbelievably there are still people in government who, either for reasons of self interest or political advantage, still seek to pursue the current insane renewables agenda. If these people are allowed to prevail then the power cuts, economic dislocation and the consequential casualty list will be considerably worse.

Politicians, green zealots and other assorted wishful thinkers have there heads firmly buried in the sand. In Germany it has been even worse. That is why this German report is so important.

As part of the unending Green propaganda, we continually  bombarded with how Germany have embraced wind and solar. It is well worth cutting though the bullshit and picking up on exactly what the real experience is.

The above RWI-Essen document is a highly reputable study regarding renewables in Germany. This report is now three years old. Nothing has improved. It is (even for me) a shocking expose of the cost and waste of the German experience. I'll quote a few items from it below, but perhaps the concluding paragraph from the executive summary say it all.

[quote]
Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in
the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world” (The
Guardian 2007), we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary
tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic
and environmental benefits.
[unquote]

From the Abstract:

[quote]
To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security.
[unquote]

Some more quotes from the Executive Summary

[quote]
Currently, the feed-in tariff for PV is more than eight times higher than the wholesale
electricity price at the power exchange and more than four times the feed-in
tariff paid for electricity produced by on-shore wind turbines.
Even on-shore wind, widely regarded as a mature technology, requires feed-in
tariffs that exceed the per-kWh cost of conventional electricity by up to 300% to
remain competitive.
[unquote]

[quote]
In the end, Germany’s PV promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a
per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker
subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).
It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion
would vanish as soon as government support is terminated, leaving only Germany’s
export sector to benefit from the possible continuation of renewables support in
other countries such as the US.
[unquote]

[quote]
Claims about technological innovation benefits of Germany’s first-actor status are
unsupportable. In fact, the regime appears to be counter productive in that respect,
stifling innovation by encouraging producers to lock into existing technologies.
[unquote]

Clearly, the German experience should serve us as a dire warning rather than an example. Already their energy prices are only second to Denmark. Luckily (so far) for Germany, their industrial base built up from the second world war has enabled them to indulge in this fiasco.  Only a fool would take us down the same debilitating path.

Unfortunately we have no shortage of fools in Westminster.

Texas Offshore Turbines: 50% total loss in 20 years?

A article from the New Scientist (Here) reports on a major modelling exercise done by Carnegie Mellon University. This report aims to predict how offshore turbines would stand up to the weather off the Texas coast.

The modelling predicts 50% of the turbines will be destroyed within a 20 year period. Remember that is total loss. It is not going to cover the known gearbox reliability problems (See Here) or simply the massive maintenance costs faced by any offshore structure.

Over here in the UK assorted wishful thinkers dream of huge offshore wind farms far out in the North Sea, or crammed into the shipping lanes around our coast.

Galveston Bay is of course in Hurricane Alley, but it lacks the unremitting hostility of the North Sea. For comparison, the cost of oil extraction in the North sea is among the highest, if not the highest in the world. (Wikipedia Here). This high cost is mainly due to appallingly high maintenance and support requirements.

Meanwhile over in Galveston, they have been routinely extracting oil both on-shore and off-shore (especially in shallow water in the Gulf of Mexico) since 1924. It is only since they have ventured into deep water that they have had major technical problems as displayed by the Deep Water Horizon disaster.

This North Sea maintenance penalty is going to apply to any North sea offshore structure. Even in the less hostile environs along our south coast the cost is going to be prohibitively high (that is, without massive government subsidy). It is difficult to see that offshore wind farms anywhere around our coast are going to be any more practical than that Carnegie Mellon University  have found for Galveston Bay.

We have already seen one severe problem where most offshore turbines in Europe have actually shifted dangerously on their foundations (See Here) Although the wind industry has managed to (by and large) keep this major problem quiet, it bodes ill for the long term survival of these structures.

These offshore turbines, wherever they are built, are going to require enormous amounts of maintenance. This maintenance cost will far exceed the practical economic viability.  Offshore turbines, like their on-shore counterparts stand no chance of ever being free of massive government subsidy.

But offshore turbines take the cost and subsidy fiasco to a totally new level.

Without doubt, the minute the subsidy stops, so will they.

Wind Turbine Scam On Steroids

There are times when the stupidity of Her Majesties Government exceeds even the realms of fantasy we normally expect from these buffoons.

Believe me, Monty Python has nothing on what I am about to tell you. Terry Pratchet could
imagine nothing so absurd.

When it comes avarice and greed, Arthur Daly would have blushed at such a scandalously lucrative con.

If I tell you that this involves the current wind turbine fiasco will probably also come as no surprise.

But believe me, my grubby little Englander, this is the wind turbine scam on steroids. If you thought the carpet baggers in the wind turbine cartel were already ripping us all off to the limit of endurance then get used to being screwed some more. (See Spectator Here)

So how does this scam work?

Basically it revolves around the utterly hopeless capability of these absurdly large structures to generate electricity.

If you forget about intermittency, a 125m tall standard 2.0 MW wind turbine actually acts like a piddling 0.5 MW generator (albeit an unreliable and unpredictable one). In other words in England it has a capacity factor (CF) of around 25%.

Most of the time though it is running at significantly less than 25% CF. It relies on occasional and highly unpredictable high wind events to big up the CF to 25%

Now if you reduce the maximum rating of the generator attached to the turbine to less than 2.0MW, but keep the same horrendously large structure, you increase the capacity factor. But you decrease the maximum output as you can no longer exploit the high wind events. So over a year the total amount of electricity generated will be less. Even though the CF has been increased.

And here comes the rub.

If you keep the preposterous size but reduce the generator rating to 0.5 MW your subisdy per MW/hr rises from about £50 to £125.

So whereas nuclear, coal or gas get paid about £45 per MW/hr and a standard 2.0 MW turbine gets paid £95 per MW/hr. A 2.0 MW size turbine crippled to max out at 0.5MW gets paid £175 per MW/hr.

Bear in mind MOST of the time this turbine will be outputting well under 0.5 MW irrespective of whether it has a 2.0 MW generator or a 0.5 MW generator.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the carpet baggers will be raking in even more subsidy by  running these monsters inefficiently. They don't care about losing even over half of the annual output of the thing, they still get paid more by crippling it

Here is the punch line: Your government is encouraging this. They think this is a "good idea".

Well, all I can say is: What do you expect from a government led by someone who is such a  technical incompetent that he believes you can use windmills to power cars? (See Here)

Regards
Billo

Residential buffer zones for wind turbines:The Real Evidence

This month sees the wind farm evangelists at RegenSW go into overdrive in an attempt to
derail any implementation of residential buffer zones (stipulated set-back distances)

The RegenSW report "Residential buffer zones for wind turbines:The Evidence" is Here.

While there are many aspects to this report that need challenging the most serious involves the health effects from building turbines too close to residential property.

Ironically only a couple of weeks ago I blogged (here) on a new paper published by a group of world leading scientists (including Dr Hanning BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD - the world renowned expert on sleep disturbance). This paper calls for minimum 2Km setback.

Here is the full citation for this new paper::
Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health [serial online] 2012 [cited 2012 Nov 24];14:237-43. Available from:
http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2012/14/60/237/102961

This paper has been available in draft for months and was first presented at a major scientific conference in 2011. But, you will find no reference to it in the RegenSW  "The Evidence".

Maybe they missed it. Funnily though, you will not find any reference to these either:

Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life by Daniel Shepherd, David McBride, David Welch, Kim N. Dirks, Erin M. Hill  Noise & Health, September-October 2011, 13:54,333-9 DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.85502
www.noiseandhealth.org 

or this

Infrasound From Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans Alec N. Salt and James A. Kaltenbach
Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 296,  DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412555
http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/296

or this

Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects of  Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents Carl V. Phillips Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 303, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412554,
http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/303

I could go on and on.

In fact, look at this sample - (Look Here) you will find 25 peer reviewed and published scientific papers on the ill effect of wind farms being sited too close to local communities. Almost all either directly or indirectly endorse a set back of 2 KM. They are all by world leading scientists and are published in world leading scientific journals.

None are even mentioned in RegenSW's "Evidence"

Regen SW do however, attempt to do a hatchet job on a case study series report by Dr Nina Pierpont. This report is now several years old and due to it's simplicity (it is a set of case studies not a paper) it is an open target. Dr Nina Pierpont is a highly qualified and much respected epidemiological scientist and practising paediatrician in New York. Her self published report, though using a small sample, was ground breaking at the time and  had a star chamber peer review.

In their attack, Regen SW cherry pick  from the NHS website (Look Here) The NHS actually does a fair evaluation of Pierponts simple case study. The points the NHS raise (about sample size etc.) Pierpont freely acknowledges herself. But this is old data. Even the NHS commentary dates back to 2009.

Just to even things up I'll do a little cherry picking myself from the NHS commentary. The NHS website's commentary on  [Pierpont] case study ALSO states the following:

[quote]
" ..it is physically and biologically plausible that low frequency noise generated by wind turbines can affect people, and the author puts forward several possible theories regarding this."
[unquote]

[quote]
"The author acknowledges some of the study’s weaknesses and states that the next step would be an epidemiological study. One possibility would be to compare "wind turbine syndrome" like symptoms in people who live near wind turbines with those who don’t. This would show how common these symptoms are in the different groups."
[unquote]

[quote]
"she [Peirpont] also adds that “further research is needed to prove causes and physiological mechanisms, establish prevalence and to explore effects in special populations, including children”."
[unquote]

In fact the whole reason Nina Pierpont called this a "Syndrome" was exactly because she freely acknowledged that at that time (several years ago), more work was needed.

This is work that has now been done by the scientists referenced above. Work that clearly shows there must be a set back of 2 KM.

In their cherry picking of historical research, Regen SW also appear to have "forgotten" about an earlier case study report that triggered Pierpont to do her report.This report was by Dr Amanada Harry. (Available Here).

Of course Dr Harry is somewhat more problematic than Nina Pierpont (who is a remote New Yorker). Dr Harry is a highly respected and well known local Devon G.P and is known and respected by thousands of people in the South West.

Perhaps RegenSW  might also be somewhat embarrassed that the first detailed scientific study on the damaging effects of wind turbines on local communities was actually conducted in the SW England and  vigorously ignored and denied by wind farm camp followers from then on.

In their "Evidence" RegenSW are obsessed by terms like "legally binding commitments". They are though, apparently far less interested in the latest research into set back distance on the health of local residents.

Now, I have to ask why is that?

Could it be the piper calling the tune? (you know the ugly one - labelled Carpet Bagger)

Or perhaps even more disgracefully, could this simply be a group of obsessed fanatics putting their own political agenda before the health and safety of the local population?

You decide.

Vote Independent for Police Commissioner

You may or may not agree with the elections for police commissioner. BUT if you don't get out and vote for the independent candidates on Thursday you can guarantee that one of the puppets put up one of the three  main political parties will take the role. If that happens don't expect the the good of the locality to come before petty political considerations.

If a politico gets in, lots of nasty little agendas will be addressed at the expense of the community. The role of police commissioner will become one of either vacuous apologist or mindless opponent to government policy. The actual purpose of the role will come a very poor second to the imposed political agenda.

The only positive would be that you will know who is pulling the strings as local policing suffers in order to accommodate the ambitions of the apparatchik.

I have just listened to the four candidates from Dorset on the local radio. Except for the Independent candidate ( ex senior police officer Martyn Underhill ) the candidates sounded like they straight off the  Muppet show.

All three politically sponsored candidates were obviously and painfully politically ambitious. Two of them displayed a nastiness which would bode ill for any role demanding a level of diplomacy.

So like it or not, tomorrow is IS important. Unless you get out and stop the political parties imposing their ideology on your local policing, you will be sorry.

So go out and show two fingers to the dirty politicians - and their grubby little poodles.

Vote Independent.

If like me, you are in Dorset, that means:

Vote Martyn Underhill.

Saville McAlpine and the Secret 28

It would have been difficult for anyone to avoid the recent BBC controversies over the Saville cover up or the McAlpine slander.  But there is yet more that the BBC wishes to keep from your eyes.

This latest secrecy revolves around a 2006 editorial decision the BBC once bragged about in an in-house report. It is sadly just another shocking indictment of the arrogance of the BBC.
The 2006 editorial decision concerned removing the concept of even handedness on the reportage of climate change. The BBC declared that this decision was arrived at after consulting 28 "leading experts". However the BBC was rather coy about who exactly these "experts" were. Since then it has point blank refused provide any more information.

Climate Change, as you may have surmised, is one of the most important debates in living history. To remove the basic concept of even handedness from such a debate MUST have a verifiable and clear reasoning behind it. Instead the BBC is silent and is willing to go to court and spend a huge amount of licence payers money defending its position from a freedom of information request. (See Here) All this to simply defy a Welsh pensioner and his wife who wanted to know who these "experts" were.

You have to ask: What exactly does the BBC have to hide?

For obvious reasons, those who are not convinced by the climate change argument are smelling a rat and I don't blame them.

The only way people can be educated as to the effects of mass pollution is to allow the questions, however heretical, and allow fair dissent to the current mantra, even if that dissent contradicts current scientific knowledge.

Science, let alone democracy, is never served by denying debate. This current secretive BBC stance reduces their coverage of climate change to mere propaganda. Which is much more than a shame.

The uncaring, high handed and self serving ethos that IS the BBC has shown via the Saville affair, that children were and probably still are, unsafe in the hands of the BBC.

Similarly their bizarre trial by innuendo and deceit of a leading Tory shows that individuals cannot expect fair dealing from the BBC (I wonder how many lesser persons, without McAlpines resources have been ruined over the years by similar "investigations")

Now finally we have via the "Secret 28" the sordid display of the BBC apparently suppressing debate and taking a partisan position. Without any justification other than "Trust us - we are the BBC".

As every day passes, this self serving elitist bureaucracy get ever more corrupt, ever more divorced from the people who pay for it's excess.

With this latest, and so far low profile outrage, the BBC is seeking to hide from us the identity of those who helped it arrive at one of the most important editorial decisions of the last 50 years.

Such an arrogant secretive stance reveals the BBC as the enemy of fair scientific debate,  and so then, as the enemy of democracy itself.

This monster must be brought to heel.

Wind Turbines: A Major New Noise Report

Just a quick post about a new peer reviewed study, published in a leading academic journal on the effects of wind turbine noise on nearby residents. It has been written by three leading academics. (including Dr Chris Hanning - arguably the worlds leading expert in sleep deprivation)

The study (quicklink) is Here

Full Citation:

Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health [serial online] 2012 [cited 2012 Nov 11];14:237-43. 
Available from: http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2012/14/60/237/102961

Basically this study reinforces the the now well founded opinion that wind turbines should be no
nearer than 2Km to residential dwellings.

Needless to say, this report will be vigorously ignored and then denied by the money hungry wind turbine cartel and by their brown nosed apologist fashion loving followers. No doubt we will also hear the hysterical slurs and accusations against the researchers in due course. As has happened before.

Do you seriously think there is a difference between the wind cartel and the tobacco industry? Dream on. If there is one, it is as thick as a cigarette paper.

But at least there are signs that these greedy corporate monsters, who are imposing immense misery on an untold number of communities across our country are now meeting some resistance.

Wiltshire County Council has set a minimum setback distance of 2Km (3Km for large turbines).
(See Here). Good for them. Standing up for your community is exactly what local democracy should be all about. Wiltshire County councillors deserve out applause.

But most of all we should salute Dr Chris Hanning and his colleagues for having the courage to publish.

The opinions and scientific findings of Dr Chris Hanning, Dr Mike Nissenbaum and  Dr Jeff  Aramini should cause anyone with the slightest moral conscience to pause in of building these useless monsters anywhere near residential dwellings.

Will that happen?

Don't hold your breath.

BBC Whitewash: Matt or Gloss?

Dear Reader,

Tonight I am going to perform the magical feat of reviewing the BBC Savile documentary before it has even been broadcast. Why? It is on late and I have to go to work tomorrow!

Even so, am I jumping the gun? Being a little premature maybe?

Well, not as premature as this so called Panorama expose.

After all is this not all part of a C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L investigation?

It appears not. At least as far as this documentary is concerned.

This late night Panorama program cynically ensures the BBC can beat it's chest about Savile, without breaking the criminal investigation embargo. It concentrates on a side issue, the pulling of an earlier documentary about Savile. It is being broadcast late on, just as many people are going to bed so minimising the audience.

It is difficult to see this forthcoming Panorama broadcast can be anything other than a clever damage limitation exercise. The documentary can try and draw a little of the poison from the Savile affair and also get  pro BBC propaganda out even while the criminal investigation continues.

Here we have the BBC earnestly investigating the BBC. Then carefully orchestrating how and what is revealed.

No doubt there will be some tut tutting about a little corporate naughtiness, then they will grandly announce that there is nothing really rotten at the dear old auntie Beeb.

You know: Practices have been amended, lessons learned, staff re-trained etc. etc. Ra.. Ra.. Ra..

Of course it is likely that Savile was only the tip of the iceberg. Consequently  I expect email and data backups relating to other potential abusers are currently having a "deep clean" at dear old Beeb.

To me, it is difficult to see anything other than that the crimes of Savile were actively aided and abetted by BBC production and contract staff.  They must have known what went on. It was after all, done under their noses. It also appears to have been common knowledge in the BBC.

But still they rehired him. Again and again. Then quietly let it go on some more. For thirty years.

I am not a lawyer, but to me that sounds like a large number of BBC employees may be potentially "Accessories After The Fact" ( Wikipedia Here ) and possibly complicit in the crimes of Savile and others.

I would also expect that this superior "couldn't give a damn" attitude extended right to the top.

Simply, the BBC ruling elite just didn't care. Why should they?

The BBC regards itself as above the law. Normal rules that apply to the rest of us are suspended for the BBC. In many ways the BBC is a state within a state. Or at least as ruthlessly self centred as any large predatory corporation.

The BBC can and has broken governments. It has it's own poll tax. It is immune from competition and has a guaranteed multi billion income. So why should it care about some young girls, especially when some of their "stars" find them so enticing?

The BBC regulates what you see, like this documentary tonight. You would be naive to expect the truth.

Anyway later on, for those who can keep their eyes open, we will see how right or wrong I am.

Just one final thought:

We have all been appalled by the disgusting antics in News Corporation, but really for every criminal in News Corp it looks like the BBC probably has ten.

Will we be seeing any of them in court soon?

Dream on.

Gasland Purbeck and Propaganda

The Purbeck Film Festival is to present the film Gasland as one of it's features. For those who do not know, Gasland is a documentary about Fracking. (Natural Gas extraction by Hydraulic Fracturing).

As a film, Gasland  has been totally discredited by a number of sources. As a documentary it is laughably inaccurate and riddled with innuendo and make believe. Truth is most certainly not it's strong point. To say Gasland refuses to let the truth get in the way of a good fairy-tale would be the understatement of the century.

The fact that this grubby piece of propaganda, with so many inaccuracies, contradictions and outright lies should be shown as some form of "environmental" expose says a lot about the gullibility and narrow mindedness of those presenting it. I notice they couldn't wait to run up a poster with somebody in a bio hazard suite. No doubt their mates will be impressed.

The truth, as shown in the USA now over several years is very, very different from the childish paranoia as displayed by our local eco-warriors.

If you go and watch this preposterous lie of a film first of all read at least some of this detailed demolition of the film, (virtually minute by minute.) Here Or for a synopsis Here

Alternatively try this article by Liz Stelle at the Commonwealth foundation Here

Or maybe this demolition piece at the New York Times Here

 This film is so pitifully inaccurate I could go on and on with more exposé's. But I'm bored. Google "Gasland debunked" yourself.

So what is the truth about Fracking?

Let us start with a few undeniable facts (even by the eco-zealots)

1. As fracking has become a mainstream source of natural gas in the USA, prices have fallen to one third of their 2011 price. In other words wholesale gas is, at most, the same price it was ten years ago.
2. In the USA gas is now cheap enough to displace coal as an energy source for generating electricity. Consequently USA Carbon emissions have massively decreased. Please note: The vast majority of this decrease is due to the utilisation of natural gas NOT wind or solar (whose contribution gets buried in the noise).
3. Fracking in the USA is now a very large industry employing many thousands of people, yet the paranoid depictions and claims of huge (or even small) water poisoning problems as made in Gasland have been shown to be utterly false.
4. Because of fracking, the USA has for the first time in a 100 years, become a net exporter of oil products and is within sight of what most Americans regard as their holy grail - energy self sufficiency.
5. In fact the USA is likely to become a large exporter of LNG in the next few years. They are also converting thousands of trucks to LNG so reducing their Carbon emissions even more.

The final irony on all this is that as gas has displaced coal in the USA, world coal prices have fallen. Because Russian and Norwegian gas is expensive we, in the UK, are now burning more coal. Our emissions have increased because we have not adopted fracking like they have in the USA.

So how does this directly affect us?

Purbeck has the largest on-shore oil field in Europe (ever noticed it?) Potentially there might also be a great deal of gas, the extraction of which will be about as noticeable as the extraction of the oil has been for the last 50 years.

While I hate wind turbines and would happily do without them, even my windy turbine loving readership must admit they need backup (aka gas) Either we can be held to ransom by Putin (or even buy US fracked gas at a large premium) or we can explore our own resources. That means exploring the potential of fracking in Purbeck as well as elsewhere. Wind turbines or not.

Sadly it looks like science and truth come a very poor second to fashionability for those promoting this junk film at the Purbeck Film Festival. They much prefer their self indulgent fashionable hysteria. After all, without the lies and ridiculous posters who else would pay attention to them?

The bottom line is that Gasland, is an irresponsible, inaccurate and unscientific piece of propaganda that would have made Joseph Goebbels proud. It is though, Oh-So fashionable.

Interestingly there is another film for release soon called FrackNation which puts the other viewpoint. But I don't expect our eco-fashionistas will be the least bit interested let alone promoting it at the next Purbeck Film Festival.

By all means, support the Purbeck Film Festival. Even go and see Gasland if you must. But don't be naive. Those showing this film have a political agenda to which the truth is very much a secondary issue.

Be Warned.

Wind, Bluster and Carbon Reduction

The IPPC commissioned Garrard Hassan to do a report on how effective wind power is at reducing carbon emissions. For those who don't know, Garrard Hassan are a leading consultancy engaged in the wind turbine gold rush. Commissioning them was a bit like asking the Jesuits to give an even handed account of Catholicism. But never mind. Here I'm going to expand on their main claim that in 2011 Wind power reduced Carbon Dioxide  emissions by at least 5.5 Million tonnes. I'll leave their comedic denialist style claims regarding intermittency and reliability to another post.

Their arrogantly titled report "Beyond the Bluster" is HERE. This "peer reviewed" report (peer review panel of one) bases a great deal of its gravitas on another (quite good) report "Empirical estimates of emissions avoided from wind power generation" (good quality copy available HERE)   Garrard Hassan interpret the results from this report  and then grandly come to the conclusion that in 2011 at least 5.5 million tons of carbon dioxide was mitigated by wind. Of course they cannot but help to gild the lily by then going on to claim that this figure could potentially save over twice as much if all the wind power was directly offset by cycling coal plant (which, of course, in the UK  it hardly ever is, and is frankly, absurd) So I think we'll stick to the optimistic 5.5 million tons and put the gilding down to a little over enthusiasm.

5.5 million tons of Carbon Dioxide. Sounds impressive. Unfortunately sounding impressive is not quite the same thing as being impressive.

Ideally wind will have displaced carbon intensive power production i.e. Coal. But in the UK it is unlikely that coal is ever directly replaced.  Gas displaces coal and then cycling the CCGT plant accommodates the intermittent wind supply. But let us be nice, let's assume all of the 5.5 million tons can eventually be reflected down to a shut down of coal plant.

Now coal is almost pure Carbon. In fact 27% of carbon dioxide by weight is Carbon. So our 5.5 million tons carbon dioxide equates to a burn of 1.5 million tons coal.

Now, what size power plant does that correspond to?

Well, one ton of coal roughly corresponds to 2 MW/hr of generated electricity. (See here) So our 1.5 million tons of coal correspond to 3 million megawatt/hrs. There are 8760 hours in a year. So we can work out what size power station could provide this in a year. (3000000/8760)

So our idealistic  reduction in coal burn equates to a continuous output of 340MW.

Now assuming a good coal fired power station operates with a capacity factor between 70% and 85% the 340MW equates to a single power coal fired power station of around 400 - 450MW.

So in 2011 (a windy year) the entire wind turbine fleet, at a subsidy cost of over £800 million managed to reduce carbon emissions corresponding to a single small to medium sized coal fired power station.

That is of course, if you believe the wind industry. Remember, this 5.5 million tonnes is NOT my figure it comes from Garrard Hassan - doyens of the wind industry!

This also means that the cost of offsetting that 1.5 million tons of coal comes out at well over £500 per ton in subsidy to the wind energy cartel. Every ton of coal saved from burning by wind costs us an extra £500 in subsidy on top of the actual cost of the power generation.

By chance an old clapped out, 50 year old Magnox nuclear power station in Oldbury was retired in 2012. It had been producing carbon free power for nearly half a century. Its rating? 430MW.

So every year for the last 44 years, this single small first generation nuclear power station reduced carbon dioxide emissions by roughly the same amount as the entire wind turbine fleet managed in a windy 2011.

Don't figures like that just knock you out?

Fiddling Wind Turbine Images

I had to smile when I read a comment from a local windy on one of my posts accusing the local action group (DART) of inflating turbine image size on one of their flyers. ( Comment 5 on this post )

Here is part of what the windy's comment:
[quote]
I've seen the leaflets that DART circulated, with an image of turbines we estimated were 4 times bigger than the proposed ones. Who wouldn't be horrified by that and sign a petition?
[unquote]

Yes. I agree. But actually, I would bet that what the windy really meant was 4 times bigger than the propaganda images produced by their beloved developer .

As reported in ( This Article ), a prominent Scottish architect along with Stirling University has been conducting research into how various wind farm developers have been cleverly fiddling images to make their wind farms appear less intrusive.

Take these two example images taken from the same location (see the above article) that show the deception. Notice both images are the same width and you can see all of both images.

The top image uses a wide angle lens to give a panoramic view that is well outside the real  field of view of an observer. This is then presented as an image at close range, so then all of the panorama is seen by the observer. The consequence is that the turbines (and buildings for that matter) are reduced and appear much less consequential than in reality. The bottom image shows the view more realistically with a field of view similar to that of a real observer.

There are rules governing these photo montages, but there are loopholes. These loopholes are ruthlessly exploited by the carpet baggers, leading to results similar to that achieved in the top image.

Now, when I look at the example images above, to me, it looks like the bogus pro-wind like propaganda image presents the turbines at about a quarter size of the more realistic bottom photograph.

I don't know if the DART flyer actually did present the turbines a four times larger than the Infinergy images. I didn't see it. But if they did it looks like DART probably got it about right.

So maybe, in the future, perhaps my windie commentator should do as they suggested and "be horrified and sign the petition".

You know it makes sense.

Love & Kisses
Billothewisp

Rotten to the Core

You would have thought that after the cash for questions scandal and the the expenses outrage, our Dear Leaders would have learned that Joe Public gets a bit pissed off about MP's fiddling the system.

But No. These arrogant, self serving buffoons are at it again.

Tim Yeo MP is Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee. A role that demands even handedness and a level of technical competence. My last post was about how technically unsuitable he is for such a role. But really that is simply the tip of the iceberg.

The biggest scandal about Mr Yeo chairmanship is that he is in the pay of the renewables industry.
( See Here ) and ( Here )

Tim Yeo, The Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee is also the  President of the Renewable Energy Association ("The voice of the renewables industry in the UK" or so they say) and has directorships with an assortment of renewable energy companies that rake in about £140,000 a year.

Can you imagine the hullaballo that would erupt if the Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee was found to be a in the pay by (say) BP, Centrica and British Coal? Or that he was (say) president of the Oil & Gas UK? (the UK oil and gas trade body)

You can almost taste the rightous indignation that would spurt forth from the wind industry cartel. Actually I would be outraged too, just as I am about his current real "arrangments".

There is an old saying about who pays the piper calls the tune.  But whatever, it is a nice little earner for Mr Yeo all the same.

So is this outrage restricted to one morally challenged member of our ruling elite?

Dream on. ( See Here )

John Selwyn Gummer, now Lord Deben is now Chairman of the Climate Change Committe (CCC) he is also chairman of a company ( Forewind ) which plans to build hundreds of ultra subsidised offshore turbines. But Selwyn Gummer is a busy bloke, he also chairs a lobbying consultancy with a speciality in advising clients how to make money out of Global warming.

The logo of the CCC is "independent advisers to the UK Government on tackling and preparing for climate change".

Are they having a laugh or what?

So is that it? Two dodgy members of the Great and Good? Sorry no. It isn't. This article ( Here )  finds another THREE members of the CCC with questionable allegiences.

Then of course we have Cameron, who personally recommended Gummer for the post. His father in law rakes in around 300,000 a year by hosting a wind farm.

Cleggs wife is a director of a wind energy company.

It goes on and on.

Even after the fiddles, outrages and pocket lining of the last two decades our MP's are still falling over themselves to rake in the cash at the expense of their moral obligation to even handedness and the electorate..

No wonder Public confience in our political establishment is at an all time low.

Tim Yeo, Contraception and Energy Policy

It appears the Tory MP Tim Yeo has several nice little earners supplimenting his MP salary. ( See Here ) ( And Here ) He is paid considerable amounts of money for what appear to be nominal work load commitments to a number of renewable energy companies and trade bodies. Bearing in mind how self serving and morally challenged our MP's tend to be, it is unsurprising that he see's no clash of interests in also being the  Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee as well.

Dear old Tim is also an avid supporter of on-shore wind farms. Avid that is, until one is threatened to be imposed on his own turf, then all of a sudden the thing is "inappropriate". Do I detect the whiff of hypocrisy?

That is perhaps unsurprising as he was also an enthusiastic supporter of John Major's "Back to Basics" speech while also being the father of four children by three women, one of which he was married to.

But never mind. I'm not really interested in the whether Tim Yeo knows how to use a condom or not, and I am quite sure there are much worse examples of sexual proclavity within our noble leaders. But I am quite interested in exploring how technically competent he is. After all this is all about how our country will meet the technical challenges related energy supply for probably the next fifty years.

Now I know I being a little naive here, but I would have thought that someone occupying such a crucial technical position would be - well, an Engineer. Or a numerate scientist. A medic would suffice. But really, it would have to be someone who could claim several years of numerate technical competence. Someone who could see through the bullshit.

So, what qualifications for such a role has our swampie hero got? A Doctorate in Power Engineering? Maybe at least a degree in a numerate discipline. But I'm not obsessed by pieces of paper, has he alternatively got long term design experience in a technical subject?

Tim Yeo went to Cambridge. So far - so good. I know some awsomely capable engineers who went to Cambridge.

So what was it? Physics? Mechanical Engineering maybe? Sadly No. Tim Yeo, the man who is essentially in charge of guiding the technical development of our energy policy has a degree in....

History.

Yes folks, the technical direction of our national energy policy in in the hands of a self serving hypocrite with a degree in history.

God help us all.

Doing the Right Thing by St Mabena

Billothewisp just blogged a poem regarding the potential desecration of a small village in North Cornwall. The poem was first published in St Mabyn Village News

I picked up on this some weeks ago and I have for various reasons been inactive for a while.
Tonight I was pleasantly surprised to find that the applicants for this Turbine have decided not to proceed. ( See Here )

Billothewisp would like to congratulate the ex-applicants. The wind turbine gold-rush must be hard to resist. It is good to find people who put their community before that of a Judas payment, however lucrative.

Morally, the wind turbine scam is inexcusable. At least, when the enquiries into this outrage start (and they will) the applicants in this case can legitimately claim they put their community before profit. They put personal honour before filthy lucre.

Good on them. Perhaps true environmentalists do exist.

St Mabena and the Beast

St Mabena and the Beast  

Stands tall Mabena`s proud church tower
Presiding o`er the village hours.
Congregation`s songs of praise,
Peals of bells its rafters raise.
Within its walls the history kept,
Births and Christenings, Marriage, Deaths.

Cross brooding, mystical, untamed Moor.
From Camel`s mouth and far from shore,
Trusted landmark, welcome beacon
Guiding those safe haven seeking.
Though now it seems in future time
You`ll bow to a cash cow wind turbine.
So bid your Parish congregation
Say NO to this Beast`s application.
(A poem by Derek Sturch)

Reproduced from the St Mabyn Village News

Good luck to the people of St Mabyn in their gallant fight against this travesty.

love and kisses
Billothewisp

Wind and the Myth of Fossil Fuel Subsidies.

One of the latest little scams our wind turbines aficionado's are trying to pull is to justify their obscenely expensive and ineffective Wind Turbine generators (WTG's) by inventing fictional subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear. The latest and greatest of these has the carpet baggers claiming that that the massive ROC subsidy received by wind is on par with or even less than that received by gas, oil and coal.

Of course, this is a load of tosh. Just as it is a load tosh that wind is cheaper than nuclear (See this Post).

Here is a fine example of this bufoonery at The Guardian - Here  (where does the Guardian get their reporters from?). You have to ask: Do Guardian journalists ever read the documents they supposedly quote from? Or do they just do as they are told? 

According to our Guardian scribbler, poor hard done-by wind (which at best produces 1% total energy supply) "only" got £700M subsidy in 2010. Whereas (shock horror probe) the demon spawn of Satan (aka fossil fuels) received a whopping £3.63 Billion. 

He supposedly derives this from an OECD document available Here. Pity the journalist didn't read it first. I have to ask if Guardian journalist are just naturally lazy or so dedicated to spewing out propaganda they willingly subvert the truth to aid their carpet bagging friends in the wind industry.

At the end of this document from the OECD are three tables that summarize the subsidies received by coal oil and gas (produced at the end of this post)

Each of these tables itemise the folowing:
A "Producer subsidy" i.e. the subsidy received by the energy producer.
A "Consumer" subsidy which relates to the reduced VAT rate charged on all electricity and heating (however generated) 
Finally, a subsidy for inherited liabilities. (£8.5M - coal only)

These are the producer subsidies:
Coal: Nil (Coal provides approx 14% total energy)
Gas: £233M (Gas provides approx 40% total energy)
Oil: £301M (Oil provides approx 38% total energy)

These subsidies though are acknowledged by the OECD as for specific purposes, not like the ROC which simply lines the pockets of the shysters running the WTG scam.

What this ridiculous article includes in to order to get to £3.63 Billion is the Consumer subsidy. This of course, applies to all energy providers including wind and relates to consumers NOT providers. Wind (whose energy is also subject  to the same consumer VAT reduction from 20% to 5%) still gets an another £700M. All for their measly 1% annual contribution to the UK energy mix.

I can only see this as a fundamentally dishonest and decietful misuse of data in order to promote a mistruth. The fact that this appears in a supposedly  upstanding newpaper is absolutely unforgivable.

 You can guarantee ther wind industry and their pals will try and pull this trick again.

Just remember, even if you consider the consumer VAT tax reduction a subsidy, then it is a subsidy to consumers. It is a subsidy to people who use the energy NOT the producers. The reduced VAT tax on energy makes no difference to the wholesale sell-out price for that energy whatever it is derived from. It relates to fossil, nuclear, wind, hydro,  and any other energy generation technique.

This non existent fossil fuel subsidy just comes down to another self promotional myth from the wind industry and their sycophants.

One day they may start telling the truth. Just don't hold your breath waiting.

(tables follow)

East Stoke: Greed 4, Democracy 0

Some bad news has been handed to my friends in East Stoke.

The East Stoke Wind turbine appeal has been approved. The local council had refused planning for four huge but pitifully ineffective turbines. The rich multinational appealed. The end result was that the  government appointed apparachtik overruled the local council. Infinergy get to build their four useless money making machines right in the heart of ancient Purbeck. 

To top it off, Joe Public gets to pay the ROC subsidy to line the coffers of Dutch multinational KOOP (who own Infinergy). In return Infinergy will provide a small, intermittent and laughably ineffective source of electricity. But, as long as nobody cuts the ROC subsidy, it will be a nice little earner for our Dutch cousins.

Even though the appeal steamrollered the local democratic decision, I think we should congratulate DART, Dorset CPRE, the people of Purbeck and particularly East Stoke who so gallantly fought this travesty. Many Dorset families are today out of pocket because they personally helped fund the legal defence against this appeal. They could do no more. Their defence of Purbeck has gone way beyond what anyone should reasonably expect from any community. 

But really, the odds were always stacked against them. All over the country there are literally thousands of East Stokes all battling an unequal and unfair fight against greed and stupidity.

This crime against East Stoke forms a just a small part of what will probably be one of the greatest scandals of the 21st century.

Where do the people of Dorset and East Stoke go from here? I don't know. No doubt when the dust settles a strategy will emerge. But this hard fought battle against the rape and pillage of Dorset should be acknowledged and congratulated. Equally we should lament this latest greed fuelled assault on rural England and local democracy.