« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The UK’s Big Freeze Redux

As a reliable energy source, wind blows.

Bwhahahahahaha!

In a replay of last year’s weather pattern, the U.K. is once again in the grips of a Global Warming Climate Change-induced record cold snap.

Not to worry. Those industrious Brits had the foresight to build wind farms with rated capacity equal to 5% of the country’s electricity needs.

But they’re getting only 1.6% of their electricity from the wind farms. Because…

Extreme wintertime cold comes from high pressure weather systems. And high pressure weather systems don’t generate much wind. Not much wind = not much wind energy.

But since the weather is so cold, big mechanical things like wind turbines freeze up. To prevent damage, they need to be thawed out.

This is priceless:

As the temperature has plummeted, the turbines have had to be heated to prevent them seizing up. Consequently, they have been consuming more electricity than they generate.

Bwhahahahahaha!
Read what columnist Richard Littlejohn at the Daily Mail has to say about the Met Office, the weather service whose forecasts begin and end at the altar of Climate Change:

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

The Met Office’s predictions are based on a computer model which assumes ever-rising temperatures — so much so that it forecast that this winter would be significantly milder than the past two years.

Even though the winters of 2008 and 2009 were ferociously cold, they were dismissed as ‘random events’. The Met Office put the odds on a third harsh winter no higher than 20-1.

Those responsible for keeping our transport network running were stupid enough to swallow this bogus, optimistic forecast, and consequently failed to make proper provision for the blizzards which duly followed. …

Needless to say, the head of the Met Office is not even a weatherman. He’s a leading ‘climate change activist’ who buys into the propaganda pumped out by the fanatics at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — exposed for blatantly suppressing evidence which contradicts their messianic belief in ­‘global warming’.

Back in 2000, the CRU’s Dr David Viner told The Independent that winter snowfalls would soon be a thing of the past.

‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’ he predicted confidently.

Even when they are proved wrong, the warmists will never admit it. They simply move the goalposts — which is how global warming morphed into ‘climate change’.

Back in the olden days, the Scientific Method worked like this: you made a prediction based on a hypothesis, then tested the prediction. If it was false, you scrapped that hypothesis & went back to the drawing board for a new hypothesis. Now, when the facts are 180 degrees opposite the prediction, the hypothesis dogma stands unchallenged, and a new explanation is fabricated to wrap around and reckoncile with the contrary observations.

H/T dennism

COMMENTS

  • alaskaescapeartist

    It was like you know the punchline by the time you’re done reading the headline, and that makes it even BETTER.

    Renewable energy is a high price for easing liberal guilt complexes, or outright insanity.

    I’m going to go fire up some incandescent bulbs.

    • gekster

      And we are both right.

    • The_Gadfly

      a price worth paying. Problem is, it actually makes them feel more guilty because in their guts they know they are stealing from other people to try to make themselves feel better.

    • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

      The problem is that it doesn’t pay.

      Those 5MW windmills are so big and so expensive that, even selling their electricity at 3-5 times the rate of coal, they take 20-30 years to pay themselves off. That’s a ridiculous investment for something that only runs when the wind blows.

      Wind and solar will only ever augment the electrical grid, assuming they become economically effective. They will never be a primary electrical source.

  • johnnyd

    It drives me nuts. They just keep subsidizing the damn things and costing us more and more money. Here in Central IL they are putting them up left and right IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MOST FERTILE GROUND IN THE US. It is stupidity at its highest level. A local farmer told me he gets $9,000 a year for each stupiditymill on his land.

    The GOP BETTER START MAKING IT A PRIORITY FOR THE US TO “DRILL BABY DRILL”. It is insanity to just let our own oil sit while we pay the Saudis to kill us in return. The Saudis are spending money hand over fist and will run out of money in short order if we cut our dependency. If we as a Country put ALL our efforts into drilling and refining we could do it fast.

    WE NEED TO MAKE DRILLING AND COAL MINING A PRIORITY, NOW…………………………………………………..

  • izoneguy
  • deevee

    “As the temperature has plummeted, the turbines have had to be heated to prevent them seizing up. Consequently, they have been consuming more electricity than they generate.”

    They, also, have air conditioners used in the summer to keep the hundreds of gallons of oil in the turbines cool.

    Plus there are other energy using parts to these industrial wind turbines.

    How much more energy do they consume than generate?
    I’ve asked the question of our legislators here in Wisconsin who advocate for “wind farms” but only get a deer in the headlights stare.

  • Deskpilot

    what the TOTAL amount of energy used in the manufacture of these stupidmilss is: mining(ore/bauxite>aluminum), plastic (oil), transportation of all raw materials, casting and milling, assembly, transportation and erection,
    These things will NEVER pay for themselves. They will rot on the pole first.

    • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

      …why wind power is always so much more expensive (3-5 times the going rate) than coal or nuclear energy. These wind mills are so expensive that they can’t pay for themselves.

      I know more about solar cells than I do wind mills, so let’s look at those as a stand-in.

      Solar cells come in varying efficiencies. Less-efficient cells are cheaper buy. They generate less power, but cost far less than than top-efficiency cells.

      When I worked on a solar car team in college (when I thought I was going to be an engineer), we bought near-top-of-the-line cells. They cost over $100 per cell. We needed about 200 of them. We were also one of the first domestic users of lithium-ion polymer batteries, digital DSP technology and other ultra-high-tech. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why our car cost a quarter-million dollars to build. But we almost always finished in the top echelon of competitors at races, so we got sponsorships.

      Some other teams bought less-efficient cells and lower technology controls and batteries. They spent less and got less energy, their cars weighed more and had less overall control, but they didn’t have our funding so it made sense for them. They were never effective competitors in terms of finishing first, but most of them finished the race and their cars cost a lot less to build.

      Economically speaking, those other teams were more competitive. Their $35,000 to $75,000 cars still finished the race, just at a slower speed but at significantly reduced cost.

      Sure, none of these cars were viable as a consumer transport mechanism, but in many ways the slower teams were much more effective with their resources than we were.

      So now we’re a private and we’re looking at buying solar panels to put on the roof. Let’s say we have a choice between $5 solar cells and $100 solar cells. The $5 cells generate, say, 5Kw while the $100 cells generate 15Kw (just an example). This means that, on a per-dollar-spent basis, the $5 cells are 7 times as effective at reducing costs as the $100 cells, even though the carbon-offset is much less.

      The problem with greenies isn’t necessarily that they want us to embrace “green” energy sources. It’s that their goals and objectives are wrong. They want today what won’t be economically effective until many years in the future.

  • Common_Cents

    This is the dangerous thinking you get from the left. Wind/solar and other alternatives aren’t viable at todays energy prices so we must raise the energy prices!

    Notice the $5 gas story circulating now in the lame stream media. That is so $4-$4.50 gas won’t “seem as bad”.

  • Common_Cents

    I live near an Indian reservation in MN, and only recall a few times where their wind turbine is even turning out of hundreds of times I have driven by.

    I just watched a NOVA special on Antarctica that was quite interesting. They were doing deep core drills analysis and noted many times of melting over millions of years, yes even without man! imagine that! Gee, you’d think that the poles were frozen forever if you listened to the GW liars.

    Matter of fact, they were doing a study in a very remote region of Antarctica that claimed it was the driest region in the world, drier than deserts. There they found rocks millions of years old on the surface since there were no water driven erosion etc.. They also found pristine volanic ash right on the surface. Volcanoes in Antarctica. I thought it was an ice cap forever until evil man started messing with the earth!?

  • dennism

    He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool [shall be] servant to the wise of heart.

    I would say that Butch got the better of it when he inherited the gold wristwatch that Captain Koons had hidden for two years in his whoosey whatsey. (Ref: Pulp Fiction.) Inheriting a gold wristwatch is far better than inheriting the wind.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir