“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
AN extremely inconvenient insight into the monumental amount of “dirty” fossil fuel derivatives required to manufacture, install and maintain so-called “green”, “clean” and “renewable” industrial wind turbines…
(Climatism images, links and bolds added)
To Get Wind Power You Need Oil
Each wind turbine embodies a whole lot of petrochemicals and fossil-fuel energy
WIND turbines are the most visible symbols of the quest for renewable electricity generation. And yet, although they exploit the wind, which is as free and as green as energy can be, the machines themselves are pure embodiments of fossil fuels.
Large trucks bring steel and other raw materials to the site, earth-moving equipment beats a path to otherwise inaccessible high ground, large cranes erect the structures, and all these machines burn diesel fuel. So do the freight trains and cargo ships that convey the materials needed for the production of cement, steel, and plastics. For a 5-megawatt turbine, the steel alone averages [pdf] 150 metric tons for the reinforced concrete foundations, 250 metric tons for the rotor hubs and nacelles (which house the gearbox and generator), and 500 metric tons for the towers.
If wind-generated electricity were to supply 25 percent of global demand by 2030 (forecast [pdf] to reach about 30 petawatt-hours), then even with a high average capacity factor of 35 percent, the aggregate installed wind power of about 2.5 terawatts would require roughly 450 million metric tons of steel. And that’s without counting the metal for towers, wires, and transformers for the new high-voltage transmission links that would be needed to connect it all to the grid.
A lot of energy goes into making steel. Sintered or pelletized iron ore is smelted in blast furnaces, charged with coke made from coal, and receives infusions of powdered coal and natural gas. Pig iron is decarbonized in basic oxygen furnaces. Then steel goes through continuous casting processes (which turn molten steel directly into the rough shape of the final product). Steel used in turbine construction embodies typically about 35 gigajoules per metric ton.
To make the steel required for wind turbines that might operate by 2030, you’d need fossil fuels equivalent to more than 600 million metric tons of coal.
A 5-MW turbine has three roughly 60-meter-long airfoils, each weighing about 15 metric tons. They have light balsa or foam cores and outer laminations made mostly from glass-fiber-reinforced epoxy or polyester resins. The glass is made by melting silicon dioxide and other mineral oxides in furnaces fired by natural gas. The resins begin with ethylene derived from light hydrocarbons, most commonly the products of naphtha cracking, liquefied petroleum gas, or the ethane in natural gas.
The final fiber-reinforced composite embodies on the order of 170 GJ/t. Therefore, to get 2.5 TW of installed wind power by 2030, we would need an aggregate rotor mass of about 23 million metric tons, incorporating the equivalent of about 90 million metric tons of crude oil. And when all is in place, the entire structure must be waterproofed with resins whose synthesis starts with ethylene. Another required oil product is lubricant, for the turbine gearboxes, which has to be changed periodically during the machine’s two-decade lifetime.
Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year. However, all of it will be in the form of intermittent electricity—while its production, installation, and maintenance remain critically dependent on specific fossil energies. Moreover, for most of these energies—coke for iron-ore smelting, coal and petroleum coke to fuel cement kilns, naphtha and natural gas as feedstock and fuel for the synthesis of plastics and the making of fiberglass, diesel fuel for ships, trucks, and construction machinery, lubricants for gearboxes—we have no nonfossil substitutes that would be readily available on the requisite large commercial scales.
For a long time to come—until all energies used to produce wind turbines and photovoltaic cells come from renewable energy sources—modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels.
This article appears in the March 2016 print issue as “What I See When I See a Wind Turbine.”
WIND ENERGY – not as “clean”, “green” or “renewable” as the bumper sticker suggests!
SEE also :
- ‘GREEN’ Energy Future | Climatism
- UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity And The Environment | Climatism
- TRULY GREEN? How Germany’s #Energiewende Is Destroying Nature | Climatism
- GREEN Energy Is The Perfect Scam | Climatism
- DO NOT PASS GO! Seven Years Jail Time For Using Cheap Electricity In Australia | Climatism
- WESTERN Nations, Driven By A Global Agenda Of Climate Alarmism, Are Destroying Their Industries With Carbon Taxes And Promotion Of Expensive, Intermittent Green Energy | Climatism
- COP24 : Climate Alarmism Is Threatening To Destroy Australia | Climatism
By Andrew Bolt ~
It’s a feeding frenzy at the UN climate conference. There’s the excuse for taxpayer-paid travel, of course, and the excuse to extort huge donations from the guilty rich:
An analysis of delegates by Carbon Brief found Guinea topped the list with 406 delegates, down 86 from last time. The Democratic Republic of Congo is second, with 237. Host nation Poland is third, with 211 delegates, followed by Ivory Coast, whose delegation this year has more than halved to 208 people…
Those huge delegations from these poor nations are actually down on last time? Wow.
Graham Lloyd puts it extremely diplomatically:
While some African countries give delegate tickets to non-governmental organisations, the make-up gives an indication of how important they consider the talks for securing development and mitigation funds.
Or as our Environment Minister Melissa Price memorably said to a former Kiribati Prime Minister who’d come…
View original post 240 more words
“WE need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
The Bolt Report with leading climate scientist Dr Judith Curry :
JUDITH CURRY is one of the world’s leading climate scientists. Unlike our politicians, she doesn’t think there’s much point to slashing emissions:
CLICK for interview link (0:49s) …
“I don’t think that even if we had the political will we could do very much to change the climate. Carbon dioxide is not a control knob for the climate. It has some effect on very long time scales but it is nothing you can really dial up or down on the time scale of a century and change the climate. There’s a lot of natural forces in play here that determine the climate and thinking that we can really control the climate by dialling down the CO2 emissions is really misguided hubris.” – Judith Curry PhD
WHY THEN IS “CARBON DIOXIDE” (or as climate zealots deceitfully label it – “Carbon Pollution”) THE KEY INGREDIENT OF THEORISED MAN-MADE “CLIMATE CHANGE”?
LIKE with all Socialistic edicts, the answer is absolute power and control over you and your lifestyle.
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, explains :
“FOR a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…” – Richard S. Lindzen
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Richard S. Lindzen
IN a MUST WATCH 5 minutes, Lindzen examines the science, politics and ideology behind the global warming scam, identifying key lobby groups who drive the fear, alarmism and groupthink that dominates debate over objective science and reason.
Prager Uni forward :
Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.
BRUTAL and comprehensive rebuttal by Paul Homewood to the latest climate agitprop out of the taxpayer funded BBC, released in time to further pollute the minds of their readers as they focus on the UN COP24 climate junket in Katowice, Poland.
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
The BBC have now stopped even trying to camouflage their bias on climate change, with this latest piece of propaganda:
Representatives from nearly 200 countries are gathering in Poland for talks on climate change – aimed at breathing new life into the Paris Agreement.
The UN has warned the 2015 Paris accord’s goal of limiting global warming to “well below 2C above pre-industrial levels” is in danger because major economies, including the US and the EU, are falling short of their pledges.
But scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the leading international body on global warming – last month argued the 2C Paris pledge didn’t go far enough. The global average temperature rise actually needed to be kept below 1.5C, they said.
So how warm has the world got and what can we do about it?
The world is now…
View original post 1,824 more words
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
President UN Foundation
WHEN prosecuting the case for “unprecedented” man-made Global Warming, the first thing you need to make sure of is that no recent climate era was as warm or warmer than the present, even if that means having to rewrite the past to fit your narrative.
THE Medieval Warm Period, also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum (due to conditions favoured for crops, life and civilisation to thrive) existed a short time ago in the climate record, from c. 950 to c. 1250., and has remained a thorn in the side, ever since, for today’s
Global Warming Climate Change activist movement.
IN the 1990 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than the late 19th century:
THE IPCC’s 1990 report dives deeper into the reality of the Medieval Warm Period and provides an insight into the cause of these warming periods:
“This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases.”
BY the 2001 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm period disappeared and became much cooler than the late 20th century:
BY pure coincidence, in the year 1995 the IPCC made a decision to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear:
YOUTUBE clip of Dr David Deming’s US Senate testimony on the “disappearance” of the Medieval Warm Period (see 01m:50s) :
Video of Dr David Deming’s statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now throughly discredited hockey stick graph.
IN case you missed it…
“I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.””
The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.””
Statement of Dr. David Deming | U.S. Senate Committee
THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD : GLOBAL and PEER REVIEWED
ACCORDING to multiple lines of “peer-reviewed science”, the Medieval Warm Period was indeed ‘global’ and was as warm, if not warmer than today.
CLICK here for excellent interactive map of clickable peer-reviewed MWP studies in both North and Southern Hemispheres :
THE ‘INCONVENIENT’ PAST
THERE is absolutely nothing unusual about today’s so-called
Global Warming aka Climate Change.
LOOK at how many periods of warmth our planet has enjoyed during the past 10,000 years alone.
CIVILISATIONS flourished during those warm periods (“climate optimums”), and collapsed when they ended.
DID humans cause the Minoan warm period of about 3,300 years ago?
DID humans cause the Roman warm period of about 2,100 years ago?
DID humans cause the Medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago?
WHAT about all of those other warm periods? Should we blame Fred Flintstone, perhaps?
IF the downward trend in temperature of the past 3,300 years continues, we could be in a heap of trouble. While our leaders keep on wringing their collective hands over global warming, we could be blindsided by an ice age.
ALL this talk about human-caused global warming is sheer nonsense, if not downright fraud. The record shows that both periods of warmth – and periods of cold – hit our planet with almost consistent regularity.