#UNRELIABLES Report Card : Actual Electricity Generated From Wind Farms Falls Well Short Of Claimed OutputPosted: April 18, 2018
“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” – James Hansen (The Godfather of global warming alarmism and former NASA climate chief)
“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers
THE question of efficiency is critical to any informed discussion of wind energy. Wind turbines produce less energy than their “maximum capacity” rating would have us believe. Due to the fluctuation of wind currents—not exactly a novel discovery—turbines actually produce around 26.9 percent of the energy they could in theory generate. This is known as their “capacity factor.” By contrast, conventional power plants tend to have a capacity factor of 40 to 80 percent. This has one obvious ramification: Wind farms are less efficient and cost-effective than non-renewable sources of energy.
ALTHOUGH this conclusion is hardly shocking, the unpredictability of wind power presents a much more serious problem. Because wind power can never be completely reliable, we will always need other, more reliable forms of energy to serve as a backup for “wind reliant” buildings and infrastructure. (Wind Farms: Not So Green | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson)
NICKNAMED “The Gray Lady“, The New York Times has long been regarded within the industry as a national “newspaper of record”.
IN March the paper launched a series called Warming Planet, Vanishing Heritage which examines “how climate change is erasing cultural identity around the world.” The series based on a UN “World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate“ report, designed to push the fashionable theme that your lifestyle is causing imminent danger to ancient monuments by dangerous sea-level rise and other climatic horrors.
AMUSES me every time: fossil fuels needed to reduce fossil fuel emissions to meet anti-fossil fuel Paris commitments. 🤦♂️
By Paul Homewood
Bit by bit, some reality appears to be intruding into the make believe world of the Climate Change Act:
No credible scenario’ exists for hitting the UK’s 2050 decarbonisation targets without continued reliance on gas, the National Grid has warned.
In a new report, entitled The Future of Gas: How gas can support a low carbon future’, the grid says that it is not feasible to switch over to electric heating on the scale required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 per cent of 1990 levels by the middle of this century.
To fill the gap required to meet peak heating demand during the winter with electricity would require a seven-fold increase in generation capacity.
It says that while electricity demand currently peaks at around 60 GW, up to 350 GW of electricity would be required during winter cold snaps.
“Electrifying heating would therefore require enormous…
View original post 451 more words
DEPICTIONS of catastrophic sea-level rise have become a useful propaganda tool for useful idiots in the Climate Crisis Industry who invent the most absurd future sea-level rise scenarios and recreate them in photoshopped horror stories that aim to shock you into belief…
THE only place where such catastrophic scenarios exist are in the warped minds of alarmist hysterics who occupy the climate controlled offices of NASA, NOAA, BoM, National Geographic and the New York Times et al. Not even worst case scenario UN IPCC RCP8.5 climate models project such doom.
CLIMATE alarmism’s primary objective is to scare you and policy makers into belief such that your taxes are effortlessly diverted, with little to no scrutiny, into research grants and green schemes and scams to supposedly stop bad weather by changing the temperature of the planet. Yet, no one can ever tell you by how much the temperature will change for each dollar spent. But alas, “Saving The Planet” is far more important than how your hard-earned money is spent, right?
CLIMATE research is paid for by you in the form of government grants. And, thanks to the system of
pal peer-review, the most scary studies, prefaced by “anthropogenic” are given the green light, published in science journals with results interpreted by the compliant mainstream media and delivered back to you, to scare you even more such that you will happily donate more money to the scam research.
A google search with key words [climate research + climate change worse than we thought] illustrates 1,960,000 times in 0.45 seconds the effect that monopolistic or one-way funding has on published results…