Wayne Brauch traces the pic back to the Smithville Turbines Opposition Party, but it is being shared at the twitter site of Ontario Wind Resistance, the province-wide umbrella group :
...because apparently nothing attracts people to your cause by wheeling out the ole swastika imagery and comparing insert your government here to the Nazis.
Have a peek at our site;
Feel free to comment, we won't block you or Wayne.
No swastikas. That's good.
Good timing ! We just saw two studies that show "wind turbine syndrom" is caused emotionally not physically. In other words, the NIMBYs are responsible for making people sick. They sure make me queasy.
Having come from a German heritage, that poster always made me somewhat uncomfortable. At our site, we tend to rely on stuff going on overseas and point out both the scientific and economic reasons wind turbines aren't a good idea. In fact , I see them as a technological cul-de-sac and retards progress on more meaningful research. Future ,more practical ,innovations I see having an unnecessary jaundiced eye cast upon them because of this present "green" fiasco.
Please, explain how wind turbines are a technological "cul-de-sac".
You might start by telling us what a technological cul-de-sac is.
Easy- A horse and buggy are essentially a great example. You can produce a buggy that is more streamlined, wheels with bearings that minimize friction that reduce drag etc. put all your work into that and in the end, you're only going to go as fast as the horse will pull you.
Then came cars.
Wind turbines aren't much different. Build the most technologically advanced turbines that will convert the power from the wind all you want. The schizophrenic nature of wind has consistently decided that turbines will produce at between 20%-25% of nameplate capacity. What's worse, is that wind is extremely inconsistent. Turbines could be operating at 65% one minute, and a couple of hours later be down to 5%. As well , the energy density with wind can't be improved upon. That's physics.
That is why gas plants had to be constructed to keep up with everchanging wind. They were what got rid of coal plants , not wind. The construction timelines prove this. So why not just rely on Nat Gas , with it's superior energy density, now instead of unreliables?
And yet, the car will benefit from the knowledge gained from making the buggy's wheels better.
Also, your version of reliability leaves a lot to be desired. Long after we've pulled all the petroleum from the ground that is practical to pull, the wind will still be blowing and the sun will still be shining. We might not be around to enjoy that though, if we've in fact burned all the fossil sunlight.
Yes, wind farms are an intermittent source of energy... but we understand how to deal with those. You need a battery of one form or another.
I've always wondered what the no wind farm people would think about building a gas or coal generator in the same place as the wind farm.
I can give you an example of winds unreliability from today. At the Enbridge Underwood development, at 7 am this morning, it was producing 157mw of power. Thats 82% of nameplate capacity. By 2pm it was down to ZERO. The output has remained at zero for the last 4 hours which means some gas plant has had to ramp up to cover for that freefall from wind. What's even worse, is that that gas plant also has to supply power now to those idle turbines as they sit idle waiting for the wind to blow again... when???
This is just one site. The same can be shown day in and day out for a majority of the wind developments across Ont.
Give up the coal memme. Coal in Ont is on it's way out and that's good. I have Bruce Nuclear just down the road. I always wonder what a pro-wind crowd would think about having a wind development and/ or a gas plant in an urban setting. Oh, I guess we already know the answer to that.
The pro wind folks always threaten about storage being just around the corner. Here's a sobering essay from "Do the Math"
Check out the links in the essay that go through other storage options as well.
It's all about energy density and wind is at the bottom of that scale.
Post a Comment