Wind farms are useless, says Duke

He's a crazy old rich fucker but I think he has a point. On a Canadian parallel, why are we in Ontario spending millions of taxpayers money to subsidise Samsung's windmills?

Cost effective? Yep, they're so cost effective that Ontario has jacked up hydro rates to subsidize them.

Yes, because right now we turn to the Greeks for good ideas.

Shut up Phil; your greatest accomplishment was boning someone and producing Charles.

Wind farms are ugly, inefficient, and kill billions of birds and bats (both of which are absolutely essential to the functioning of the overall ecosystem) every year. Other than that they're peachy-keen, carry the David Suzuki Official Seal Of Approval, and therefore are hands-off from any substantive criticism. Phillip might be a total jerk in every other aspect but on this issue he's correct.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/what-is ... power.html

This is a useful article on Wind Power and the embedded links answer some criticisms.

Further, Wind Power has already reached grid parity (cost) with coal and is close to other sources. It is cheaper than new coal or nuclear would be.

When considering the subsidies it should be born in mind that fossil fuel subsidies world wide amount to some $550 billion annually now and that they only achieved their position with even greater subsides in the past.

The subsidies talked of for wind and solar are direct subsidies while those for traditional sources are now indirect in large part. The health costs of fossil sources are also a huge drain on economies everywhere.

The storage problems with both wind and solar are not the killer they are made out to be. The technologies are improving rapidly. Pumped storage has now achieved capacities of over three Megawatts and will go higher. Note in this article the use of car batteries. One car battery can power up to ten homes.

Interconnectedness of grids will enable WP and solar from thousands of miles away to be exchanged for where the wind is not blowing or the sun shining.

In some countries wind is already producing up to 20% of requirements. I recall a British government assessment of offshore potential that concluded that the total potential was for eight times the total British electricity requirement and that, under the then technology, it could provide for around 50% consistently (it was several years ago).

Coal and oil have already lost and maintain dominance only because of the power of the industries.

Wind Power is more useful than a Duke.

Wind power might be expensive and have its problems, but what is the alternative?

Nuclear is cheap, but dangerous and there is still no solution of what to do with the waste (it is isn't clean, once you take into account mining for and transporting uranium, then disposing of the waste)

Coal is dirty
Oil is dirty and running out
Large scale Hydro is cheap and clean, but is environmental disatrous to the rivers it is on
Small scale Hydro is expensive and still damaging to the rivers it is on
Biofuels are the ultimate scam, and aren't going to solve any problems
Solar, is in about the same boat as wind

If you don't like wind power, fine - but what is the alternatvie? Because the status quo isn't going to do it for much longer.

Wind farms create fairly clean electricity. I'd say they are quite useful.

Citing an older post of mine



Solar would only work for a few months in a lot of places and in mountainous areas it would also be for fractions of the day. Wind power likes the regions that are generally used for farming unless you happen to be close to a massive scale badlands. Wind also cannot enter towns/cities as it is loud and people complain about it.

I'd be for wind power if I wasn't subsidising a foreign company through my hydro bill to get it.

Alternate energy sources should be able to compete in the market without my tax dollars propping them up. Especially seeing as though the companies in Ontario reaping the subsidies are in the business of making money, not providing me with the best source of power.

I recently had an insight about the safety of nuclear. It was promoted by as much Ontario as Japan. Ontario is scheduled to build two new nuclear plants, but in the suburbs at Darlington rather that in the country at Lake Huron. Nuclear plants should be located away from suburban areas, but in Ontario the discussion never even got around to that. It's possible to build a safer nuclear plant but this wasn't even discussed in Ontario. Mistakes will continue to be made, by politicians or contractors or whoever and the cost of a nuclear mistake is astronomical. In Japan they have had to evacuate 89,000 people permanently because of the three meltdowns.

Coal is a culprit at well, it well pollutes the air.

For the time being the solution will be gas, then much higher electric prices.

The monarchy declaring something useless?

The Emperor has no clothes says the Duke.

I'm sure the Duke has said that about the Empress a few times