Just to recap:
1 They either take up a huge amount of valuable farm land or large areas of often native forest, are blitzed to make way for them.
2. Wind turbine blades kill millions of birds and bats each year.
3. Offshore wind turbines result in lobsters being deformed and crabs immobilised by the magnetic fields.
4. Offshore installation of wind farms result in the deaths of whales and some other species.
5. They catch fire
6. At the end of their life the huge blades are buried in landfills.
So it goes on
Whale fatalities around the UK coast
Around the UK coast with thousands of whales, dolphins, and porpoises washing up in areas given over to offshore wind turbines, the wind industry is having a hard time covering up its responsibility for the cetacean carnage. The relationship between offshore wind turbine construction noise and marine mammal fatalities is now incontrovertible. Up to now the focus has been on the east coast of the USA, but the wanton destruction has been gathering pace in the UK also.
In just three years, there have been a shocking 3,000 dead whales, dolphins and porpoises. More than 1,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises were stranded around the UK in 2018 but in 2020 there was an unprecedented number of strandings- some 1102. These huge numbers of strandings suggest something was badly wrong in the seas around the UK.
A report commissioned by Defra and published in 2022 acknowledged that “the construction of offshore wind farms has the potential to harm the marine environment.” It went on to say: “ that the key area of concern is impulsive noise, that is often loud and has a sudden onset.” Marine animals are sensitive to these noise sources which have the potential to kill, injure or disturb without appropriate mitigation. Selling the idea of “green” energy while knowing that your work might be killing wildlife would be a conflict too far for many – but not apparently for the wind industry.
Fibreglass from shredded wind turbine blades renders farming land useless
Many farmers who enter into contracts with wind power outfits probably don’t know what they are in for. Do they know about the noise factor for example? If their house is situated close to the wind farm, then a good night’s sleep may be a problem. It looks like most farmers have to remove the turbines when their life is up. Although wind power outfits say 25 years for the life of a wind farm, 15 years is probably nearer the mark. It could cost millions of dollars to remove the turbines.
Turbines catch fire, or the blades disintegrate, and there is leading edge erosion of the blades also. When turbines explode into a ball of flame, shredded fibreglass, which includes epoxy, is spread over pasture. A USA farmer living in Iowa, had two turbines on her land. Both, at different times, caught fire and spread fibreglass over her land. The company removed one turbine but did not clean up the debris. The second turbine had spread debris over 300 acres, which included three neighbouring farms. The farmer now has a cornfield that is growing fast and is full of fibreglass debris. She cannot now run the cows on fields full of fibreglass debris.
One of the problems with a turbine fire is that the fire dept. cannot put the fire out. This is because they cannot reach that far into the air with their hoses. So they just let them burn. Toxic smoke fills the countryside.
There’s another problem too. Burning debris falling off the turbines can set fire to the vegetation in the area surrounding the turbine. This can spread, and could eventually engulf buildings.
Many farmers who enter into contracts with wind power outfits probably don’t know what they are in for. Do they know about the noise factor for example? If their house is situated close to the wind farm, then a good night’s sleep may be a problem. It looks like most farmers have to remove the turbines when their life is up. Although wind power outfits say 25 years for the life of a wind farm, 15 years is probably nearer the mark. It could cost millions of dollars to remove the turbines.
Turbines catch fire, or the blades disintegrate, and there is leading edge erosion of the blades also. When turbines explode into a ball of flame, shredded fibreglass, which includes epoxy, is spread over pasture. A USA farmer living in Iowa, had two turbines on her land. Both, at different times, caught fire and spread fibreglass over her land. The company removed one turbine but did not clean up the debris. The second turbine had spread debris over 300 acres, which included three neighbouring farms. The farmer now has a cornfield that is growing fast and is full of fibreglass debris. She cannot now run the cows on fields full of fibreglass debris.
One of the problems with a turbine fire is that the fire dept. cannot put the fire out. This is because they cannot reach that far into the air with their hoses. So they just let them burn. Toxic smoke fills the countryside.
There’s another problem too. Burning debris falling off the turbines can set fire to the vegetation in the area surrounding the turbine. This can spread, and could eventually engulf buildings.
A large ball of fibreglass found in a field after a turbine fire
Offshore wind turbines are wrecking marine radar signals
Radar is essential for safe marine navigation and for pilots both domestic and military. Wind turbines standing on columns 100 to 150 m above sea level with blade tips moving at speeds of 350 km/hr play havoc with radar systems, giving false images and distorting real ones. The result is unnecessary danger for pilots dependent on accurate weather reports, and air traffic guidance, both essential for safe takeoffs and landings. In a number of states in the US, the military has obtained legislation to prevent the construction of wind turbines.
A panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a report recently issued that wind turbines can create two different problems. First their steel towers can reflect electromagnetic waves, interfering with ships navigational radar systems in ways that might obscure a nearby boat. Secondly, the turbines rotating blades can also create a form of interference similar to the Doppler Effect. In this case the spinning blades shorten and distort the radar signals sent from passing ships. “Blade flashes” on radar screens can create false images that look like boats, and could confuse a human radar operator.
Battery back-up. No economic way of storing wind and solar power
The impossibility of storing wind and solar power to compensate for no sun and no wind is pure arithmetic, the claims that it can be done economically, pure delusion. The cost of storing electricity is so huge it makes getting through a single windless night under a net zero wind, solar, and storage plan, economically impossible.
Take the case of Pennsylvania in the US. On a windless night there is an average need for 20,000 Megawatts (million watts) of power. In winter in Pennsylvania there will be a number of windless nights. In the world of solar, in the winter, nights are 16 hours, since solar only generates for about 8 hours of daylight. So to get through the night we need to have stored 20, 000 MW x 16 hours or 320,000 MWh (Megawatt hours).
The current cost of grid scale batteries is around $600,000 per Megawatt hour. So this works out to be an incredible $192 billion just for the batteries. In round figures, $200 billion dollars just to get through the night! On really cold nights this could blow out to much more.
Clearly based on these figures net zero power based wind, solar, and batteries, is impossibly expensive. A push to net zero is futile and must be abandoned. Carbon Dioxide is NOT causing climate change anyway.
Blackouts are inevitable. In the Texas blackout estimates run to over 700 killed by cold. Cold kills. Storage is NOT the answer. We need reliable generation, much of which will be fossil fueled or nuclear.
We need to start building nuclear power stations immediately
The first rule of propaganda is never admit defeat, the next is denying the existence of your true enemy. It’s the reason the often subsidised wind and solar “industries” and the cult that supports them, refuses to engage with the reality that nuclear power is already the premier power generation of choice in more than 30 countries around the globe –Except New Zealand that is.
Our next door neighbour, Australia is in the same boat even though it is one of the world’s largest exporters of uranium. So we could have nuclear fuel right on our doorstep. In those 30 countries, there are currently 450 nuclear power stations operating. Another 15 countries are currently building some 60 reactors among them. These countries understand and exploit the safest, most reliable, and affordable power generation there is.
Statista.com reported that the median time for construction of a nuclear power station including connecting to the grid, is 89 months or 7.5 years. (That’s a full size station). In the meantime we should consider a small modular reactor.
Offshore wind turbines are wrecking marine radar signals
Radar is essential for safe marine navigation and for pilots both domestic and military. Wind turbines standing on columns 100 to 150 m above sea level with blade tips moving at speeds of 350 km/hr play havoc with radar systems, giving false images and distorting real ones. The result is unnecessary danger for pilots dependent on accurate weather reports, and air traffic guidance, both essential for safe takeoffs and landings. In a number of states in the US, the military has obtained legislation to prevent the construction of wind turbines.
A panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a report recently issued that wind turbines can create two different problems. First their steel towers can reflect electromagnetic waves, interfering with ships navigational radar systems in ways that might obscure a nearby boat. Secondly, the turbines rotating blades can also create a form of interference similar to the Doppler Effect. In this case the spinning blades shorten and distort the radar signals sent from passing ships. “Blade flashes” on radar screens can create false images that look like boats, and could confuse a human radar operator.
Battery back-up. No economic way of storing wind and solar power
The impossibility of storing wind and solar power to compensate for no sun and no wind is pure arithmetic, the claims that it can be done economically, pure delusion. The cost of storing electricity is so huge it makes getting through a single windless night under a net zero wind, solar, and storage plan, economically impossible.
Take the case of Pennsylvania in the US. On a windless night there is an average need for 20,000 Megawatts (million watts) of power. In winter in Pennsylvania there will be a number of windless nights. In the world of solar, in the winter, nights are 16 hours, since solar only generates for about 8 hours of daylight. So to get through the night we need to have stored 20, 000 MW x 16 hours or 320,000 MWh (Megawatt hours).
The current cost of grid scale batteries is around $600,000 per Megawatt hour. So this works out to be an incredible $192 billion just for the batteries. In round figures, $200 billion dollars just to get through the night! On really cold nights this could blow out to much more.
Clearly based on these figures net zero power based wind, solar, and batteries, is impossibly expensive. A push to net zero is futile and must be abandoned. Carbon Dioxide is NOT causing climate change anyway.
Blackouts are inevitable. In the Texas blackout estimates run to over 700 killed by cold. Cold kills. Storage is NOT the answer. We need reliable generation, much of which will be fossil fueled or nuclear.
We need to start building nuclear power stations immediately
The first rule of propaganda is never admit defeat, the next is denying the existence of your true enemy. It’s the reason the often subsidised wind and solar “industries” and the cult that supports them, refuses to engage with the reality that nuclear power is already the premier power generation of choice in more than 30 countries around the globe –Except New Zealand that is.
Our next door neighbour, Australia is in the same boat even though it is one of the world’s largest exporters of uranium. So we could have nuclear fuel right on our doorstep. In those 30 countries, there are currently 450 nuclear power stations operating. Another 15 countries are currently building some 60 reactors among them. These countries understand and exploit the safest, most reliable, and affordable power generation there is.
Statista.com reported that the median time for construction of a nuclear power station including connecting to the grid, is 89 months or 7.5 years. (That’s a full size station). In the meantime we should consider a small modular reactor.
Westinghouse proposed AP300 small modular nuclear reactor. Note the relatively small amount of land taken up compared to wind and solar farms.
Many of the benefits of small nuclear reactors are inherently linked to the nature of their design-small and modular. They can be sited on locations not suitable for larger nuclear power plants. Prefabricated units of SMR’s can be manufactured and then shipped and installed on site, making them more affordable. SMR’s offer savings in cost and construction time, and they can be deployed incrementally to match increasing energy demand.
The operating costs of a nuclear plant is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors. Plants are now expected to last for 60 years and even longer in the future.
When Finland fired up its new Olkiluoto 3 nuclear plant in April 2023 customers noted that that average spot electricity prices dropped from €245 per MWh to €60 MWh . For decades Canada and Ontario’s nuclear technology has been world leading, providing safe and affordable non emitting energy as well as good jobs for workers. Ontario has offered to sell its technology to Australia, and NZ would also be able to obtain the same. Ontario is also constructing a small modular reactor. Small modular reactors in kitset form would be useful in the NZ environment.
Studies over many years, including by the Lancet have confirmed that nuclear is the safest form of energy, despite the fear mongering. For example, thousands of people over the years have been killed by hydro dam collapses. Wind farms kill, birds, bats, whales and other marine creatures but also cause humans to suffer from the low frequency hum. These monstrosities will be a serious blot on our once pristine landscape, and may be there for a long time, even after their life has finished.
Nuclear power doesn’t need sun or wind. It is available 24/7. Power output can be adjusted to fit power demands. There is no pollution. That white smoke seen coming out of cooling towers is just steam. A small amount of radioactive waste needs to be buried and sealed deep in a cave. Eventually nuclear fusion reactors will supercede fission reactors and there will no problem with nuclear waste, with the waste having a very short half life, so storage will not be a problem. Nuclear plants take up a fraction of the land occupied by wind and solar.
New Zealand needs to move NOW to avoid blackouts and excessive power prices for consumers. We need to come into the future, and leave behind the very outdated stance of being non-nuclear.
Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.
Many of the benefits of small nuclear reactors are inherently linked to the nature of their design-small and modular. They can be sited on locations not suitable for larger nuclear power plants. Prefabricated units of SMR’s can be manufactured and then shipped and installed on site, making them more affordable. SMR’s offer savings in cost and construction time, and they can be deployed incrementally to match increasing energy demand.
The operating costs of a nuclear plant is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors. Plants are now expected to last for 60 years and even longer in the future.
When Finland fired up its new Olkiluoto 3 nuclear plant in April 2023 customers noted that that average spot electricity prices dropped from €245 per MWh to €60 MWh . For decades Canada and Ontario’s nuclear technology has been world leading, providing safe and affordable non emitting energy as well as good jobs for workers. Ontario has offered to sell its technology to Australia, and NZ would also be able to obtain the same. Ontario is also constructing a small modular reactor. Small modular reactors in kitset form would be useful in the NZ environment.
Studies over many years, including by the Lancet have confirmed that nuclear is the safest form of energy, despite the fear mongering. For example, thousands of people over the years have been killed by hydro dam collapses. Wind farms kill, birds, bats, whales and other marine creatures but also cause humans to suffer from the low frequency hum. These monstrosities will be a serious blot on our once pristine landscape, and may be there for a long time, even after their life has finished.
Nuclear power doesn’t need sun or wind. It is available 24/7. Power output can be adjusted to fit power demands. There is no pollution. That white smoke seen coming out of cooling towers is just steam. A small amount of radioactive waste needs to be buried and sealed deep in a cave. Eventually nuclear fusion reactors will supercede fission reactors and there will no problem with nuclear waste, with the waste having a very short half life, so storage will not be a problem. Nuclear plants take up a fraction of the land occupied by wind and solar.
New Zealand needs to move NOW to avoid blackouts and excessive power prices for consumers. We need to come into the future, and leave behind the very outdated stance of being non-nuclear.
Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.
8 comments:
At the end of the day, wind and solar farms are built from colossal amounts of fossil fuels, have limited lifespan and don’t work when there is no wind/sun so alternative generation (coal/hydro/nuclear/gas) is required to cover these periods.
Where is Greenpeace who supposedly claim to be the protector of whales and other sea creatures ?. Paid to be silent I suppose .
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result. Wind and solar farms are a prime example. New Zealand has allowed itself to be taken in by the Climate Alarmist’s propaganda by following the doctrine flowing from the WEF’s and UN IPCC obediently. Our progress going forward will be seriously restricted unless our unimaginative ruling elites start waking up to our energy plight and immediately commence nuclear discussions. It will take at least ten years to build a small plant but the discussion has got to start now. Be remembered for having the foresight to solve our energy crisis and not for free lunches for schools.
The State is on a predetermined plan of deconstruction, as those who can see know that what the west is doing is to stupid to be stupid.
The more we depend on wind and solar , the greater the need for nuke generator backup .
And as someone recently commented, Jevons Paradox kicks in as soon as we get our power requirements balanced.
The really tragic thing is that what Ian says in this article is not new. People close to the Electricity Supply Industry have been forecasting this for years but the only story successive govts. have listened to, and allowed to be repeated is "renewables at any cost, we can be world leaders in saving the planet".
What we are seeing today is what happens when real life catches up with fact free, net zero rhetoric.
1/2
With words like “propaganda” and “the cult that supports them”, it’s no surprise that this post from IB isn’t a carefully balanced, sober review of the topic but another emotive declamation.
It’s also illogical. If IB doesn’t believe human-emitted CO2 is causing global warming, you would think he would be promoting additional fossil-fuel power generation as the simplest and cheapest solution. Of course, as I’ve noted time and again, IB is wrong about AGW: he’s shown he doesn’t understand basic climate processes such as the carbon cycle, and his conspiracy theories are simply not credible concerning the scientific consensus on AGW. In fact we do need to decarbonise our energy production.
Re battery storage: The technology keeps improving, and I would keep watching this space. See for instance, MBIE’s exploring of energy storage possibilities – web search "NZ Battery Project". Further, this was why the previous government proposed the Lake Onslow scheme, but incompetent as they were, it’s no surprise that didn’t make much progress on that.
Re wind and solar: Much of what IB writes is old material, as he admits, and as the technology has matured, many of the early technological failures were minimised. Every human technology has environmental effects, but I wouldn’t trust IB to give a balanced view on wind and solar. Aeroplanes and ground vehicles have larger effects, direct and indirect, on birds for example; shipping noise is known to affect marine mammals adversely; and so on. Even passive constructions, such as high-rise windows and high-tension power lines cause significant bird deaths every year. But no one, not even IB, is suggesting we stop flying in planes, stop driving cars, stop shipping goods, stop constructing tall buildings or stop transmitting electricity. Instead, practical solutions are considered. For wind farms, impacts can be minimised in light of careful scientific investigation, for example by choosing the siting of wind farms with care – see for example the 2009 report by DOC – web search "impacts of wind farms on birds a review" And see too the Science Feedback article (with peer-reviewed citations) – web search "wind turbines can kill birds but not as many as fossil fuels and other anthropogenic impacts"
I’ll also note this Science Feedback article (with peer-reviewed citations) – web search "energy costs of manufacturing wind turbines are recouped in one to six months" – as it shows that the logic of building wind farms in an AGW world is sound.
I thought I’d look into just one of IB’s specific points, #3 about lobsters. So yes, there was a laboratory-based investigation of the effects of magnetic fields on lobster larvae – web search doi:10.3390/jmse10050564. It didn’t appear to affect crab larvae, though another study found behavioural effects on adult crab behaviour in the lab – web search doi:10.3390/jmse9070776. Although there is (as yet) no evidence of impacts in natural environments, at least one solution is quite simple: bury the power cables under the ocean floor. This is already done in some areas to protect the cables from damage. It’s no surprise, too, that IB omits recent research that indicates wind farms act as lobster shelters and so foster lobster populations – web search "offshore windfarms could offer new habitats for lobsters new research"
LFC
2/2
As for nuclear-powered generation: I agree, we should look into it carefully. But as with any technology there are disadvantages, too. The most significant problem is radioactive waste, which requires long-term storage over thousands of years to avoid harm to humans and other life forms. The time scales we are talking about are far longer than our current civilisation. There are lesser potential impacts too: heat pollution from cooling water discharged into aquatic ecosystems, ecosystem disruption and toxins released during uranium mining, potential for nuclear accidents (particularly in geologically unstable regions such as New Zealand) – although the probability is low, the potential impact on the environment is high – and the end-of-life decommissioning of power plants.
LFC
Post a Comment