Written by Harold Armitage
The ignorant out there seem to think that the people who built, designed and installed wind turbines were unaware that the wind doesn’t blow all the time in any given place. For their benefit, this is how the system will work when complete. In the UK, the wind is generated by low pressure systems that come in from the Atlantic Ocean, cross Ireland, then us, the North sea and thence across Europe. This means that the wind is always blowing somewhere for 90% of the time. Only a few hundred feet up there is lots more wind than at ground level. Out at sea, there’s lots more wing too.
What we need to take advantage of this is wind turbines spanning this area and electricity cables linking them up. The electricity is shunted West/East and East/West to wherever it’s needed. The problem being that the turbines spend quite some time idle. This is where Norway comes in. The Norwegians have for many years generated most of their electricity from hydro power as it’s a mountainous country. This is why they still have lots of North Sea gas remaining, which these days they export to us.
However, the Norwegians have a problem too, worsening due to climate change. The hydro reservoirs can run out of water. They can also be too full and water has to be allowed to run to waste. These hydro reservoirs represent stored energy. This is where the wind turbines come in.
When there’s a surplus of wind energy, Norway uses it. This allows the hydro reservoirs to replenish. When there’s a dearth of wind, the Norwegians export electricity into the East/West grid so filling the 10% gap. We use more electricity in Winter but that’s the time there’s more rain and wind. This enables both systems to operate for longer and more efficiently. All renewable energy tends to be diffuse and so takes large scale and costly devices to gather it in.
The wind system/hydro link is mutually beneficial so it’s unlikely that any country will be likely to cause disruption. (Unlike Russian gas). The system is far from complete, it will be many years and lots more dosh before it is. However, nobody can take the wind (and rain) away from us, we are not subject to the whim of Putin or the various ayatollahs and their gas. The weather is inexhaustible and will not run out.
For those that bleat about coal
Would you want to send your kids down a deep coal mine? Can you imagine the little snowflakes going down there anyway? Whatever’s being mined, no mine completely runs out of it. As the mine gets older, it becomes less economic to run and eventually it ceases to be viable and is closed down. This is what happened to UK coal mines, indeed many were subsidised by the taxpayer long after they became non-viable. Some of the shallower coal reserves are still being mined by opencast methods in the UK. All mining is immensely destructive to the landscape, the so-called “recovery” projects are total BS. All manner of poisonous materials are dragged from deep below the ground and released. Far worse than fracking but we never hear that.
When a mine is abandoned, most of the mining machinery is removed, usually to be scrapped. In a few weeks the ongoing and accelerating process of collapse brings all the tunnels down and the mine becomes totally unworkable and beyond any retrieval. Mines need constant (expensive) maintenance to keep them open, working or not. Re-opening abandoned coal mines is totally unviable. Some abandoned mines are being “re-worked” as open cast mines, near to Merthyr Tydfil springs to mind. Most UK mines were closed down in the Harold Wilson era, far fewer in the Maggie era in spite of the propaganda but you may be sure they will not be re-opening.
New coal mine in Cumbria?
Although coal consumption in the UK is a fraction of what it once was, we still need coal to make steel, bricks and cement. (Although oil can be substituted in some cases). Processes are being tested to make steel using electricity only but it will be a complex, energy-hungry and costly business.
Presently steel is made using coke made from a special grade of coal, eg the coal in Cumbria, (a notoriously polluting business). This is an expensive grade of coal and the coal field extends right under the sea, so precluding open cast mining. (Now where will they find people willing to work in this proposed mine? Fetch the Welsh back from Patagonia?)
Naturally, the greenies are excited by this prospect but are they willing to forgo steel spades for their allotments? The coal will have to be got from somewhere if not from Cumbria.
~~~
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaner-cheaper-way-to-make-steel-uses-electricity/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-58467209
https://www.power-technology.com/projects/north-sea-link-nsl/
https://www.groundsure.com/resources/offshore-wind-turbines/
~~~
An aside
Driving to work one day through the streets of Wales I spyed by the roadside a large block of coke. I knew immediately it was from the local coking plant. I slung it in the back of the car thinking it would go nicely in my wood burning stove. It is extremely hard and dense compared with “normal” coke. It was a wasted effort, the stuff just wouldn’t burn in my stove.
The hospital where I worked was the biggest user of the surplus coal gas so as an engineer there, I got to look around the coking plant. It was the very vision of hell with the heat and fumes. The workers there must have had very short lives. Local air pollution levels must have been very high. I imagine the technology has improved since then or I can’t see anyone wanting to work in a coking plant anywhere.
Animal Farm – had a GREEN flag! What a strange coincidence!
If I remember right, Snowball’s Windmill never did produce electricity as he had promised!
If you have a case and facts in which you believe, and that you would like others to learn from and accept, you lay them out for agreement, rebuttal or discussion.
For me, anyone who begins their presentation anticipating their inability to persuade, thus in their first two words having to smear anyone who might dare to disagree, is not worth reading. So I didn’t.
But I did spot that he then uses pejorative terms like ‘those who bleat about coal’, implying another view is unfounded and emotionally or manically based, similar to the old ‘banging on about the EU’ smear.
Well I think we can see who is bleating.
Thomas Huxley said: “Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
Richard Feynman said: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
So the die is cast, there is no turning back
Yes I’ve looked up alea jacka est.
Apparently Suetonius informed us that it was one of Caesar’s Bon mots.probably goes with crossing the Rubicon and other self energising meaningless phrases.
I suspect our friend below is trying to explain away all the shaky (I won’t say false ) science that has been put out by many possibly real scientists who should know better that all science is challengeable.
I am not going to rehearse all or any of the many challenges made to the veracity of events leading to the establishment of man made Global warming, the objections are too legion and not just from amateur ignoramuses.
But global warming and global cooling has taken place over millions of years, whether man’s efforts have had any effect or not, doesn’t really matter as there are other far more major natural events such as sun flares etc.
There is no need to call crisis, carbon is not the enemy but overall the friend of man
And as Ralph Prothero pointed out recently, there is little or no evidence of islands disappearing and I would add after living for over 30 years on the British East coast, little evidence of seas rising exponentially.
(We bought a house in 1985?, situated right down by the shore of an estuary, we checked with nearby harbour authorities and river conservation boards before buying and they expressed no fears., I revisited the property a week ago and it is still there, apparently in regular use and the sea wall I hand built still protecting it, I.e.not requiring any height increase.).
I’m afraid phrases like the die is cast and no turning back are just utterances of desperation by those who have been “found out” in their continued promulgation of the nonsense of a Global Warming crisis.
There are many places around the world where it is the land sinking due to isostatic bounce – relieved of the weight of the ice at the end of the last ice age more northern areas rise simultaneously tilting southern areas down.
https://zippyfacts.com/why-is-the-south-of-britain-sinking-and-north-britain-rising-and-what-causes-the-earths-crust-to-sink/
That does seem to be a bit of a generalisation. I worked in Hull some years ago and the land around the Humber estuary was tilting to the east by around 6mm. per year.
Well I don’t agree with much that HarryAgain Armitage says, but I do defend the right for him to have an opinion. There is no need for fisticuffs gentlemen.
Your explanations Harold, seem perfectly clear to me and as an ex 132kv linesman I can definitely concur on it being very much windier two hundred feet up in the air. What comes over very clearly though is that the Norwegians have it all thought out beautifully. I wish we had half their foresight. We messed it all up when we privatised the industry and instead of the consumer coming first, it is now profit, profit, profit. Run by bean counters for the benefit of the shareholders.
There are few remaining suitable places in the UK where hydro plant could be built. I suppose we could flood the S. Wales valleys but the Welsh would probably object.
I think Harry’s argument is well made. I have reservations on some points, but I do not have the knowledge nor the time to write a critical appraisal.
He certainly makes a much better case than much of the responses.
Do you mean Alan Wheatley that you agree with his contention that global climate is changing?
I.e. that it is not the same climate as it has been since before human history began? I.e. cycles of warming and cooling, including ice ages and mini ice ages, when people were lighting braziers to cook, on top of the ice, when the Thames had frozen. I think that was in Victorian times.
I dare say he does have some knowledge of how wind turbines work but so what? His article says nothing about whether we need them. Whether they are a good solution to some problem. Whether installing them is a good use of land or money etc.
So Alan Wheatley, you think Harry Again’s argument is “well made” . Really? You agree with him that “sustainable” & “renewable” resources of electricity (windmills & solar panels) are a cheap, practical and reliable way of providing the UK with the electricity that it needs ?
As to whether windmills & panels are practical, have you paid much attention to the area of land & sea that will have to be given over to them, for them to make the UK independent & self-sufficient in electricity ? All those millions of battery-powered cars are going to need lots of electricity for recharging their batteries, to begin with.
An argument can be appreciated as having been “well made” without necessarily agreeing with it, in whole or in part. If a counter argument can be equally well made then the reader can form a judgement.
A response that does little more than shout “rubbish” adds nothing to understanding the issues. To raise pertinent questions relating to relevant issues not discussed is helpful. Even better would be an article with substantiating evidence describing them and the consequences arising; electricity needed to charge battery-power cars would be one case in point. I understand that question, but what is the answer.
Re Harry, if you think:-
“One thing that has become very clear lately is that somewhere along the line he is making money out of what he says. Or alternately, he is not what we would normally describe as ‘rational’ or ‘well informed’.”
what is your rational and well informed argument in support of you accusations?
This is a response (at 4:42) to Pauline Baxter, not to Ralph Prothero.
What’s this about coke wouldn’t burn in a wood burning stove.
I can’t think why not
When I first worked in building site office shacks, they all had coke stoves and they were the fiercest burners I have ever come across.
However we went to live in a smokeless fuel area (1966) and used “smokeless fuel” which looked like coke, using a gas poker it sometimes took hours to catch, but when we used Dr Brunowski’s nuts from a Homefire plant in Coventry, ignition was fairly immediate and by golly did they throw out some heat – unfortunately we only used them when we had a few spare bob as they were hellish expensive (or when we were desperate in trying to get the fire going with smokeless fuel)
What would a modern coking plant be like? Same as the ones you saw?
The coke for iron smelting has to be “crush resistant” as it goes into the blast furnace in a pile sixty or seventy feet high mixed with iron ore. “Normal” coke would just be crushed under the weight and air for combustion couldn’t pass through it.
So a special very strong coke is made from special coal using a particular process.
It’s also very heavy and dense, hard to break even with a hammer.
It has the appearance of “foam metal”
And hard to set on fire too!
Dunno. I don’t suppose there are any modern coking plants in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_(fuel)#Production
1. Know your enemy.
2. Steel and iron could be recycled more and better
3 I like Eco-warminista. I has a ring to it4
4 Recyclig is pathetic
5. Stop waste before it exists or at borders. ( Or does that come under discrimination or immigration )
7 if recycling costs it will not get done.
Harry, I could not take your article seriously after you had mentioned “climate change”…
I agree, climate changes daily and during the Seasons – yes it does.
Nothing to do with global warming, that is unproved except by rigged statistics (proved).
HArm the troll is, as usual, confused.
Precisely Jack Thomas. My reaction too.
Actually I could see many other factual errors in what he said.
One thing that has become very clear lately is that somewhere along the line he is making money out of what he says. Or alternately, he is not what we would normally describe as ‘rational’ or ‘well informed’.
I could not take it seriously after I saw the author’s name and the first two words.
HarryStikesAgain and again and again-
”people who built, designed and installed wind turbines were unaware that the wind doesn’t blow all the time”
Professional engineers knew this. They were engaged to design and build these wind turbines. Whether they work all the time is something that would have been discussed at the tender stage. You are aware that . . .
‘So, you don’t want to do this because it is barmy, and give up the chayou nce of a gazzilion pound open ended price government project”?
I dont think so.
At least you are not referenceing wikipedia. But the biased broadcasting company has form (like yourself, extreme bias) and is therefore more than suspect. I’m guessing the pointer points to a 14 year old spouting what her teacher indoctrinated her with.
One of the problems posed for the ‘ignorant’ is that there is an abundance of people confident in their expert knowledge of different subjects. They extol ‘this and that’ as though it is nothing less than stupid and offensive to think that they could possibly be wrong. Three obvious subjects that come to mind are our absolute need to get vaccinated, the rights of people to decide what gender they are (way above the minute percentage of genuine anomalies) and catastrophic climate change.
In Germany the consumer has paid around 30 billion euros a year in feed-in tariffs for an instrument that fails to deliver and is no longer economical without subsidy. Consequently they are not replacing turbines at the rate wind turbines are going out of commission. That subsidy is in addition to those turbines being weather-dependent, intermittent and unreliable, covering vast areas of land; affecting scenic views and local wind flow, temperature and moisture and issues of noise and wildlife. Of course they never die or leave anything behind, and their manufacture is after all out of site and out of mind.
In short until we get off the idea that belief systems constitute science we will be prejudiced and therefore vulnerable to exploitation. When it comes to these ivory towers of pseudo-science as soon as debate is shut down or when ‘the experts’ get abusive that is when the ‘ignorant’ smell a rat.
I am intrigued Kim. What is this 30 billion item. Being part German i feel tricked.. What is it that doesn’t work ? 30 billion sounds like a French submarine or French Nuclear power plant, or Australian Kangaroo meat processor.
He just made it (30 billion) up!
30 billion euros in feed-in tariffs to support the German renewable energies. Feed-in tariffs are essentially subsidies. That money would buy about four French Nuclear power plants. Australia just cancelled a contract with France to supply 12 submarines at about 57 billion euros. So that would be 6 French submarines. As for Australian Kangaroo meat processors I’ll let you do your own research.
To put it bluntly Germany’s wind power program is in tatters. That should tell you all you need to know.
Incidentally the other reply to your comment also tells you all you need to know about something else.
why did this eco-waminista mongering diatribe get through the reality filters of Independance Daily??
For two reasons:
1) Free Speech, which also means you’re free to dissect and destroy his arguments (within the restrictions of civility and no ad hominems …);
2) This is not an Echo Chamber where we all are only reassuring ourselves that we’re right, no need to engage with contrary content.
Readers were able and capable of debating fiercely all the pros and cons of the covid jabs. Must they be protected against hearing controversial arguments about climate change and all that jazz because they are deemed unable to argue against it?
I think not!
oh really, just like the author gives us balanced facts and arguments in his sweeping statement “However, the Norwegians have a problem too, worsening due to climate change.” ?? Prove it or shut up. And his homs about “bleating for coal”….let that one through didn’t we.
Free speech my foot. Don’t play their games. Conservative, libertarian supporters of small government and skeptics of the “narratives” (because this is what is is) are given absolutely no leeway in counterarguments so we don’t bother any more. We need to turn their tactics on them not give them a free rein to shout us down with unremitting pseudoscience. Get real. Turning the cheek gets us exactly what we deserve. We will own nothing and like it.
Arguing with a religious cult is pointless.
Well, this article gives you the chance ‘to bother’.
Instead of doing so, you attack me for my decision to publish a controversial article.
I find that attitude rather interesting.
All this falls under the ”play the ball, not the (wo)man” edict.
And for general future reference, the moon is not made of green cheese. Or green anything. And likely not burnable.
Next up – buffoon, blonde haired; buffoon; stupid, fat boy; buffoon, idiot . . . ad nauseum. And no justification.
Well said, Viv. Although I would have used other words than ‘interesting’. I admire your self-control.
Well said Viv, I hope that those, like Roger, who can enlighten readers about the biggest hoax that has been perpetrated on the human race by fellow humans will also write for us. Biggest hoax? No not Covid, it’s the notion that plant food is driving the planet to become an uninhabitable inferno and that we must urgently stop it, that we even could if it were true.
Harry may be right about Norway, because climate change is the norm for planet earth, has been for billions of years. Of course those learned astrophysicists tell us that the planet will indeed become an uninhbitable inferno – in a few billion years. Nothing to do with burping cows and plant food belching power stations but a consequence of the sun’s death.
I trust Harry’s comments on old mines – it sounds about right, sadly, what I bring to the table, from painful personal experience,is the ability to spot gaslighting. The manipulation of our brains by malign forces – feeding PR to lazy MSM who regurgitate their rubbish. This week it was the suggestion that ‘climate change’ was damageing the windows of our stately homes – FFS – I’m sure they’ve weathered worse weather over the centuries and wooden window frames, exposed to the elements are not immortal, we had to replace 2 in our unlisted house last year.
Well said Helena too.
Modern mining methods usually work using mechanised equipment on a long face. As the equipment moves forward the workings, aside from access roadways, are allowed to collapse as support is removed. A “wave” of settlement may be visible at the surface; there used to be one clearly visible, and felt, which progressed along the A624 (if I recall correctly) in Derbyshire. I don’t believe much coal would be left by such methods.
The article is totally factual. Sorry if your level of education is too low to understand it.
I can’t make it any simpler.
Foul Viv!
(Hospital handy)man playing the man rather than the ball.
Yellow card and warning.
! ! !
Oh dear Viv. Hope I’ve not broken the ad hominems rule again.