Jeremy Corbyn Increasing Wind Generation

Jeremy Corbyn has praised wind power . . . announcing plans to create 67,000 jobs and 37 new wind farms.
. . .
"They are the future. We need to increase the amount of wind generation."

theecologist.org...

The fake renewable energy sector is giving false hope to the young and ill-informed. It's a cruel trick that will break many of them.

. . . wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.

Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.


Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.

As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

www.spectator.co.uk...

There are simple steps that can be taken to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and nuclear. Wear wool. Turn the heating down or off. Get up early during the summer months and use the sunlight, sleeping while the sun is up then using electric lights during the evening is ridiculously wasteful. Walk or cycle. Use rocket stoves and rocket mass heaters for cooking and heating.

A fantasy image has been created in which the young and/or ill-informed can see themselves sitting at a computer in a nice office doing a 'green' job that has 'sustainable' tacked onto it somewhere. It's cruel nonsense.

How dare we not apply the green fix? Because there is no green fix.

a reply to: Kester

Bird shredding and fish killing farms.

But, hey, it's green!

Morons.

a reply to: Kester

Will they be collectivised wind farms?

When do we round up the old farmers?:

I think he has generated enough wind already.

a reply to: Kester

You solution is not the solution. We need big science to solve the energy crisis:



This may not be the best solution but Kirk does a really good job outlining the problem.

a reply to: Kester

Let's face it , all Corbyn is good for is generating wind.

It's election time so any promises or claims should be taken with the traditional pinch of salt.

a reply to: Kester

Jeremy should take a leaf out of his brother’s book. Pier’s knows the truth. (I think that’s how you spell his name).

originally posted by: gortex
Let's face it , all Corbyn is good for is generating wind.
It's election time so any promises or claims should be taken with the traditional pinch of salt.

Lol!! He's recycling old labour policies, hoping new young voters will be

impressed. Instead of tackling the housing shortage he is intending

spending millions on insulating peoples homes.

Somewhere between 15 and 20 years ago the then labour government were

providing free insulation in walls and roof space. The public were inanduated

with posted leaflets, advertising and companies offering free insulation (nice

little earner for these companies) Don't see them around now?)

I Had my walls filled with wool and my attic was done twice .......the second

company said the depth of insulation requirement had been increased so they

re did it. Therefor there shouldn't be many homes requiring insulation?? (It was

like the PPI) of that time!!

Building regulations already have requirements for 'new build' insulation,so where

are all these houses requiring insulation coming from?


They should concentrate on more social housing

Oh, right, sorry, I just thought you meant he was talking more. The guy is a muppet. a reply to: Kester

a reply to: Kester

Wind Powers as in Wind Power plants are mostly automated that only need some maintenance. In Ontario Green Energy sector forced the loss of above 400 workers.

This type of job sector "Green friendly" is not job secured.

The UK has good prospects for offshore wind farms, as is the current direction of travel. This is conditional on the environmental impact AND the production of the wind units to be centralised in the UK. Onshore wind farms are a blight on the landscape and environmentally questionable.

Corbyn is just getting involved in something that is already happening, but he may speed up progress, especially if he pours £ into the industry. If he does pour cash into the industry, he needs to ensure it benefits the UK and not investors elsewhere, which is what happened the last time (ahem) Labour was in power.

On pouring cash. Labour seem to be racking up a rather large spending committments. That’s a bit worrying for tax payers and the next generation who will be hobbled by debt. Well, nothing changes, eh?

Anyway, this is interesting

a reply to: eletheia

They should concentrate on more social housing

And clamping down on buy to let properties , it's no wonder we have a shortage of affordable homes when people own two , three or more looking to make a nice profit from those who can't buy and are stuck paying high rents to private landlords.

Labour are failing the people they claim to represent , how they expect to win an election is beyond me.

a reply to: Kester

There are simple steps that can be taken to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and nuclear. Wear wool. Turn the heating down or off. Get up early during the summer months and use the sunlight, sleeping while the sun is up then using electric lights during the evening is ridiculously wasteful. Walk or cycle. Use rocket stoves and rocket mass heaters for cooking and heating.

Sticking plaster for the gaping wound.

If this is the best we can do then we're finished.


a reply to: dfnj2015

We need big science to solve the energy crisis

I quite agree.

originally posted by: gortex

And clamping down on buy to let properties , it's no wonder we have a shortage of affordable homes when people own two , three or more looking to make a nice profit from those who can't buy and are stuck paying high rents to private landlords.

Whilst I agree with you to an extent...... Many years ago I too was a private

landlord charging the nominal rent. The reason I decided not to continue

being a landlord was having to take a tenant to court for non payment of rent

over a three month period. The judge on evicting them told them that "didn't

they realise that they were being charged a very reasonable rent." At the time

of leaving they trashed the flat and tore the gas meter off the wall necessitating

the police and gas services being called out........ There are bad tenants too!


One thing I have learned in life is that people only ever look after things

(property clothes cars) that they own never what they borrow or rent!!

Labour are failing the people they claim to represent , how they expect to win an election is beyond me.

Dont they always?

AOC Doesn't like wind farms they make the days longer by slowing the earth rotation down.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Big science? Gaping money pits that promise the moon, and deliver little to nothing?

No. Smart science.

Energy production isn't the problem. All sorts of things can do that. It's storage and getting it where it needs to go that's the problem. Without destroying, either in actuality, or potentially, the environment around it.

Neither require "big science", rather it requires "smart science".

Smart science is small steps that gradually solve the bigger issues, then move on to the next bigger issue.

Now there's no discounting the "Eureka" moment, but smart science is more likely to recognize that moment than big science.

I read the thread title and thought it would be about all the hot air coming out of Steptoe's whingeing gob now we have an election brewing.
Disappointed.
He should have his own wind turbine attached to him.
Energy crisis solved.
Next?

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Kester

Bird shredding and fish killing farms.

But, hey, it's green!

Morons.

Wind farms are absolutely fantastic for fish. They create artificial reefs that can't be fished. And they only shred larger nuisance birds like gulls and pigeons the smaller birds fly under them.

Plus you can't build roads or houses close to them so the protect green spaces.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Keep telling youself that...even if it's completely wrong.

The devastating impact to birds is now well documented.

With respect to fish, the pile driving disrupts fish habitat for months or even years on end. They're is also now evidence of turbine noise causing similar long term havoc.

But hey, it's green!

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
Wind farms are absolutely fantastic for fish. They create artificial reefs that can't be fished. And they only shred larger nuisance birds like gulls and pigeons the smaller birds fly under them.

Plus you can't build roads or houses close to them so the protect green spaces.

Sadly, that's not entirely true. On-land wind generators impact migratory birds and bats. I have read of one generator which is frequently killing swans and geese flying en route to a lake. Wing eneration is best kept out at sea and outside of the normal path of bird migrations, also noting that the larger the generator the reduced chance of birdstrike, and you can build real big at sea.

Fully agree on the fisheries though.