Wind farms are useless, says Prince Philip

[Blackwhite]

It's good to see the prince speak out against the waste of money that are wind farms:

Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson yesterday led the backing for Prince Philip after he branded wind farms "absolutely useless".

In a scathing attack, the Duke of Edinburgh said the turbines were ‘completely reliant on subsidies’ and ‘would never work’.

His comments are a rebuke to the Government, which is trying to increase the amount of energy generated by wind farms and other renewable technologies.

Last night Lord Lawson said the Duke was "spot on" and speaking on behalf of ordinary people in fuel poverty.

Philip made the remarks to Esbjorn Wilmar, managing director of Infinergy, which is building offshore turbines around Britain.

Mr Wilmar said he introduced himself to the 90-year-old Duke at a reception and suggested he put wind turbines on royal property.

"He said that they were absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidies and an absolute disgrace. I was surprised by his very frank views," he said.

When Mr Wilmar tried to argue that onshore turbines are one of the most cost-effective forms of renewable energy, the Duke apparently replied: ‘You don’t believe in fairy tales do you?’

Philip dismisses wind farms as 'a useless disgrace' and says people who back them believe in a 'fairy tale'

Mr Wilmar added: ‘He said they would never work as they need back-up capacity.’

And the Duke apparently told him: ‘You stay away from my estate young man.’

Electricity customers pay an average of £90 a year towards wind turbines and other forms of renewable energy such as solar power

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064054/Prince-Philip-blasts-useless-wind-farms-Lord-Lawson-backs-attack-wind-power.html#ixzz1eLgUq2Og

Also this: Hurrah for Philip! Wind power is the most ruinous folly of our age http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2064081/Hurrah-Prince-Philip-Wind-power-ruinous-folly-age.html#ixzz1eLgNylX7

Edited November 21, 2011 by Blackwhite

[Professor Buzzkill]

This is fantastic. Finally someone had the guts to stand up to subsidized wind turbines. The turbines need back up power stations for when theres no wind, are are so ineffecient that even if you covered an area the size of Wales, you would only get 1/3 of the power required for the UK.

Also, most of the turbines are installed on Crown land which mean the Queen gets the profits of the publically subsidized turbines.

[Guest]

This is fantastic. Finally someone had the guts to stand up to subsidized wind turbines. The turbines need back up power stations for when theres no wind, are are so ineffecient that even if you covered an area the size of Wales, you would only get 1/3 of the power required for the UK.

Also, most of the turbines are installed on Crown land which mean the Queen gets the profits of the publically subsidized turbines.

That notoriously sane and reasonable representative of the British Greek people.

Your having a laugh.

Br Cornelius

[ninjadude]

Funny. We have zillions of them in the US. And more being built and setup in new areas every day.

[Blackwhite]

Funny. We have zillions of them in the US. And more being built and setup in new areas every day.

More fool you.

[Blackwhite]

That notoriously sane and reasonable representative of the British Greek people.

Your having a laugh.

Br Cornelius

The Duke is perfectly right and correct in what he says. Winds farms are useless and he will get a lot of support from the struggling British taxpayers who don't want their taxes being spent on useless windmills.

Either we build more nuclear power stations - a lot more - immediately and rely less on expensive and useless "green" energy production such as windmills or the British people will be living by candlelight by 2025.

And if we do end up living like that the barmy environMENTALists who peddle their "global warming" codswallop will be the ones to blame.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Blackwhite

[Guest]

The Duke is perfectly right and correct in what he says. Winds farms are useless and he will get a lot of support from the struggling British taxpayers who don't want their taxes being spent on useless windmills.

Either we build more nuclear power stations - a lot more - immediately and rely less on expensive and useless "green" energy production such as windmills or the British people will be living by candlelight by 2025.

And if we do end up living like that the barmy environMENTALists who peddle their "global warming" codswallop will be the ones to blame.

Did you realise that both Nuclear and Fossil fuels recieve more subsidies than wind.

Funny how those two cheap sources of energy need tax payers help.

I suspect in a level playing field with the all the costs accounted for that Wind would look very attractive - even today.

Certainly Nuclear would never be in the running - and the truth of that is the paucity of private backers for a new generation of nuclear.

You really need to check your facts before expressing dodgy opinions.How can you be wrong on so many things.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 22, 2011 by Guest

[psyche101]

This has more to do with some british policy than efficiency doesn't it? Are the Prince's comment based on location? Wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, and the energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months.

What's the big problem?

[Guest]

This has more to do with some british policy than efficiency doesn't it? Are the Prince's comment based on location? Wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, and the energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months.

What's the big problem?

Indeed.

They cannot form the basis of a whole solution - but they are an essential part of the mix. As I once pointed out to Little Fish - no major piece of energy infrastructure has ever been built with subsidies(whether they be direct subsidies or tax breaks), and my example was the Hoover Dam. The building of the wind infrastructure is absolutely no different in that essential fact.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Did you realise that both Nuclear and Fossil fuels recieve more subsidies than wind.

what are the figures for subsidies per kwh generated?

you cannot just compare absolute numbers without factoring in how much energy you get for the subsidy. give me $65 billion to rub my hands together to produce heat - and we can all say truthfully that I will be recieving less subsidy than given to renewables.

"Wind and solar receive 55 and 97 times more in subsidies than coal and natural gas, respectively."

http://junkscience.com/2011/11/09/fossil-fuels-get-more-subsidies-than-clean-energy/

[Myles]

This has more to do with some british policy than efficiency doesn't it? Are the Prince's comment based on location? Wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, and the energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months.

What's the big problem?

It's a case of "bang for your buck". Wind turbines pay for themselves after 20-25 years. However, that does not include maintenance or replacement parts. It also does not include the energy they use to keep running.

[skookum]

I totally agree with him but wish he wouldn't say anything public. All that happens is the real message gets lost and the subject changes to times he has made public goofs.

[voidla]

environMENTALists

Well I can safely say this sums you up in a NUTshell.

[Doug1029]

This is fantastic. Finally someone had the guts to stand up to subsidized wind turbines. The turbines need back up power stations for when theres no wind, are are so ineffecient that even if you covered an area the size of Wales, you would only get 1/3 of the power required for the UK.

Also, most of the turbines are installed on Crown land which mean the Queen gets the profits of the publically subsidized turbines.

The only explanation I can think of is that the Brits are doing something drastically wrong. OG&E here in Oklahoma is building wind farms by the score - literally. This is all being done with private money and in direct competition with cheap natural gas. Obviouly, OG&E is expecting to make a profit on it.

Ten years ago there were only two wind farms in Oklahoma. Now there are over 150. And other states have a lot more, especially Iowa, which is closer to markets. The rental rate for the land for a single rotor tower is $8000 a year. Wind power is cheaper than coal; I'm not sure, but I think it's cheaper than gas, too.

I suggest you look into the way your wind power programs are being run. Something sounds more than a little fishy.

Doug

[Myles]

The only explanation I can think of is that the Brits are doing something drastically wrong. OG&E here in Oklahoma is building wind farms by the score - literally. This is all being done with private money and in direct competition with cheap natural gas. Obviouly, OG&E is expecting to make a profit on it.

Ten years ago there were only two wind farms in Oklahoma. Now there are over 150. And other states have a lot more, especially Iowa, which is closer to markets. The rental rate for the land for a single rotor tower is $8000 a year. Wind power is cheaper than coal; I'm not sure, but I think it's cheaper than gas, too.

I suggest you look into the way your wind power programs are being run. Something sounds more than a little fishy.

Doug

I would bet that many of those "farms" are getting money from the government. There is not money to be made is realistic terms.

[Doug1029]

I would bet that many of those "farms" are getting money from the government. There is not money to be made is realistic terms.

With wind energy cheaper than coal and real close to natural gas, OG&E would not need government subsidies. However, there is a provision in one of the energy laws that allows electric utilities to charge more for wind power, supposedly as a way to encourage conversion. Everybody pays this, regardless of where the energy came from, but once a quarter, a credit is applied to the consumers bill for fossil fuels not consumed. It's based on BTUs. Because wind uses NO BTUs, the entire amount for wind is rebated, making wind cheaper.

This has the same affect as a tax on fossil fuels, but the government doesn't get any of it. It differs from a tax in that if you don't pay it, OG&E can turn off your power, but can't take your house or seize your property for non-payment.

Doug

[Bildr]

I will never understand how it is so hard for our race to go for renewable and clean energy, while thinking that fossil fuel and nuclear power plant that is one of the more dangerous forms of energy we have created is the better way?

[PeacefulAnarchy]

I will never understand how it is so hard for our race to go for renewable and clean energy, while thinking that fossil fuel and nuclear power plant that is one of the more dangerous forms of energy we have created is the better way?

Agreed, but wind farms are a complete con. Where I live there are around 50 of the things and they are rarely working, it's either too windy or not enough wind.

We were convinced onto allowing them to be erected under the agreement that we would see a reduction in our energy bills.

Yeah right, my last bill was more than ever and at the bottom it gives you a break down of exactly what % of you power comes from which types of producers.

Right at the bottom - Wind Turbines 0.3%

AWESOME!

We do need cleaner more reliable sources, but these are a joke!

[Karlis]

Agreed, but wind farms are a complete con. Where I live there are around 50 of the things and they are rarely working, it's either too windy or not enough wind.

We were convinced onto allowing them to be erected under the agreement that we would see a reduction in our energy bills.

Yeah right, my last bill was more than ever and at the bottom it gives you a break down of exactly what % of you power comes from which types of producers.

Right at the bottom - Wind Turbines 0.3%

AWESOME!

We do need cleaner more reliable sources, but these are a joke!

Another article explaining the shortcomings of Wind Farms:

Wind Turbines & "Green" Subsidies Under Fire | Print | Written by Alex Newman Tuesday, 29 November 2011 18:30

Despite billions in taxpayer subsidies pumped into the so-called "green-energy" industry, almost 15,000 windmills — maybe more — have been left to rot across America. ...

... It turns out that wind power is expensive and inefficient even in the best wind-farm locations in the world. And regular power plants always need to be on standby in case there is no wind, not enough wind, or even too much of it — a fairly regular occurrence.

That is why, when the tax subsidies run out, the towering metallic structures are often simply abandoned. ...

... "Wind isn't the most important thing about wind turbines. It is all about the tax subsidies. The blades churn until the money runs out," ...

... In recent days, a wave of articles and opinion pieces highlighting the wastefulness and destructiveness of wind farms swept the worldwide web. But with so much tax money at stake for the green-power industry, which lobbies intensely for ever more money, it will be hard to end the subsidies which generated the bogus "industry" in the first place. ...

... Analysts have said that if and when tax subsidies to wind power and other green-energy schemes are finally cut, the whole house of cards will come crashing down almost instantly. But then a new question arises: Who will clean up the mess?.

Source

[Guest]

Another article explaining the shortcomings of Wind Farms:

Wind Turbines & "Green" Subsidies Under Fire | Print | Written by Alex Newman Tuesday, 29 November 2011 18:30

Despite billions in taxpayer subsidies pumped into the so-called "green-energy" industry, almost 15,000 windmills — maybe more — have been left to rot across America. ...

... It turns out that wind power is expensive and inefficient even in the best wind-farm locations in the world. And regular power plants always need to be on standby in case there is no wind, not enough wind, or even too much of it — a fairly regular occurrence.

That is why, when the tax subsidies run out, the towering metallic structures are often simply abandoned. ...

... "Wind isn't the most important thing about wind turbines. It is all about the tax subsidies. The blades churn until the money runs out," ...

... In recent days, a wave of articles and opinion pieces highlighting the wastefulness and destructiveness of wind farms swept the worldwide web. But with so much tax money at stake for the green-power industry, which lobbies intensely for ever more money, it will be hard to end the subsidies which generated the bogus "industry" in the first place. ...

... Analysts have said that if and when tax subsidies to wind power and other green-energy schemes are finally cut, the whole house of cards will come crashing down almost instantly. But then a new question arises: Who will clean up the mess?.

Source

Thats a real great balanced article. You should consider the agenda of the magazine it appears in before accepting it as gods honest truth.

Br Cornelius

[Karlis]

Thats a real great balanced article. You should consider the agenda of the magazine it appears in before accepting it as gods honest truth.

Br Cornelius

A balanced article is not easy to come by, agreed ... even from your standpoint? And what is the agenda to which you refer?

[Guest]

A balanced article is not easy to come by, agreed ... even from your standpoint? And what is the agenda to which you refer?

Christian conservative - do I really have to say more.

A very thinly disguised anti-AGW diatribe which is light on facts and big on unsubstantiated opinion.

What I am really interested in, is there real evidence that wind farms are closing on mass due to lack of subsidy ??

Maybe we should withdraw all energy subsidies and see how the field looks at the end.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 30, 2011 by Guest

[Michelle]

(NaturalNews) Literal beacons of the "green" energy movement, giant wind turbines have been one of the renewable energy sources of choice for the US government, which has spent billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing their construction and use across the country. But high maintenance costs, high rates of failure, and fluctuating weather conditions that affect energy production render wind turbines expensive and inefficient, which is why more than 14,000 of them have since been abandoned.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034234_wind_turbines_abandoned.html#ixzz1fDAksnNl

[Guest]

(NaturalNews) Literal beacons of the "green" energy movement, giant wind turbines have been one of the renewable energy sources of choice for the US government, which has spent billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing their construction and use across the country. But high maintenance costs, high rates of failure, and fluctuating weather conditions that affect energy production render wind turbines expensive and inefficient, which is why more than 14,000 of them have since been abandoned.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034234_wind_turbines_abandoned.html#ixzz1fDAksnNl

Thats exactly the same sources of opinion (the mail and Ardvark), both notoriously biased commentators. Where are the actual facts underlying the two nearly identical articles ? There must be some actual facts and figures available from somewhere.

An interesting response from someone in the industry which at the very least casts great doubt on some of the "facts" in the article;

It's pathetic to me that casual observers--those who have little or no experience in the field of renewables or energy generally--have the gumption to write articles as if they had a clue. I've spent many years working at an on-shore wind farm, and our maintenance teams were small. Turbines do require maintenance, but generally are serviced only once or twice a year. While corrective maintenance is required on occasion, the availability of a wind farm is gernerally in the 95-98% range. Please substantiate the claim: "the costs of maintaining and operating wind turbines far outweighs the minimal power they generate in many areas, which has left a patchwork of wind turbine graveyards in many of the most popular wind farming areas of the US." The cost 'problem' with wind has to do with a high initial investment, not the maintenance cost.

I did a study on wind turbines in Ireland last year. I found that many farms were been built in inappropriate places due to a lack of strategic planning from the Government. Some farms were destined to perform badly - but many well sited farms could produce spectacularly high amounts of energy. Why was the Government allow the poorly sited ones to be built I have to ask ?

Br Cornelius

Edited November 30, 2011 by Guest

[Karlis]

Christian conservative - do I really have to say more.

A very thinly disguised anti-AGW diatribe which is light on facts and big on unsubstantiated opinion.

What I am really interested in, is there real evidence that wind farms are closing on mass due to lack of subsidy ??

Maybe we should withdraw all energy subsidies and see how the field looks at the end.

Br Cornelius

And -- what is the agenda of the website?