Turbine lifetime is about 20 years, and the decommission costs per turbine are many tens of thousands of dollars, especially in terms of location difficulties, such a the ocean.
Further, they contains many 100s of liters of gearbox oil which much be changed regularly and removed. This is one reason why they burn so well in catastrophic failure.
Thanks David Turver, great article exposing the fraud. And it is Fraud. The data is false because most is simple assumption extrapolated and manipulated.
This report from Oxford appears to be a variant of The Iron Triangle relationship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_%28US_politics%29) that is so common nowadays in Western economies despite president Eisenhower warning us about such policy capture in his farewell address:-
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
One way to break the Triangle is, as you and others propose, to instigate a systematic Red Team review process to answer Juvenal's question, "Who will watch the watchmen?" or "Who will guard the guardians?"
This is surely one of the most urgent and important tasks for Western societies in the immediate future if we are not to fall permaently into the clutches of self-serving elites whether it be for Covid or Climate Change or WHO regulations.
It looks like I have already made a report to Parliament on this Oxford Paper. The introduction to my analysis makes a similar comment to David’s analysis here. It says:
Smiths School of Enterprise
Oxford University
cc: Parliament
Re: Wind Power Errors and Disinformation.
Oxford University Report.
Sir,
Another report on wind power has just been issued, that again contains errors and omissions.
The greatest failing within this report, is it contains no provision for backup energy storage. We cannot install unreliable wind power without backup energy storage, otherwise the lights will go out. At present we are 100% dependent upon gas-powered electricity for backup, but when gas is phased out by 2030 or 2035, we will need an alternate backup system.
Missing out 30-50% of electrical generation system costs, is akin to misinformation by the Oxford team. It makes wind look more feasible when in reality it is likely to bankrupt the nation, both through excessive costs and through incessant blackouts. Observe the electrical supply problems in South Africa, and multiply by 100.
The Oxford Group Report.
Britain’s energy demand could be met entirely by wind and solar:
Interesting to see they have doubled the energy demand, for 2050. I wonder - was this in response to my and your complaints about the first report?
I sent my scathing analysis to all Conservative M.Ps, on the premiss that Labour MPs are too far gone to even bother about. But half of Conservative MPs are no better - these are still the kind of people who walk out of the chamber, when Andrew Bridgen MP wants to discuss why 40,000 people have died unexpectedly this year. That is more than died from Covid, and yet MPs walk out on him, so they cannot hear the news. In great contrast, the gallery was packed to the gunnels, and it was the first time ever that cheers from the gallery could be heard on Parliament TV.
Same with renewable energy. Why would any sentient MP listen to ‘scientists’, whose first report was in error by a factor of 100%? Why was Llewellyn not dismissed from his post, and given 20 years of hard labour, breaking rocks in the Outer Hebrides? Why are these dumb-arrse ‘scientists’ rewarded for their incompetence, with more grants to produce yet more dumb-arrse reports that have no basis in reality?
Remember that these dumb-arrse report will suck many dumb-arrse politicians into backing renewable projects, with our hard earned taxes, which turn out to be completely impractical. Things like hydrogen electrolysis have never been tried at this scale before, and yet this is already being championed as a ‘pathway’ towards renewables. Can you imagine Dianne Abacus MP, trying to understand the intricacies of this report, and whether it is viable or not? This is the MP who said that 1,000 new policemen would cost the government £200,000 a year to fund - much to the amusement of the Talk Radio host. How on Earth can Dianne Abacus MP be relied upon to preside over these momentous decisions?
Sorry, this was on LBC, employing 10,000 new policemen as a cost of £300,000. As usual, she is simply making things up as she goes along - because politicians have no idea what they are doing.
The only skillset Dianne Abacus has, is keeping a straight face while lying out of her arrse, to cover up her lack of grey matter and lack of intelligence. Why oh why, is there not an examination before entry into Parliament? Would you let Dianne Abacus be an airline captain, with no entrance qualifications? So why is she allowed to run the country?
It’s not just academics who are blinkered. It’s the same in the financial community. I recently met a very smart chap who had a plan to launch a fund to buy gas peaker plants in the UK that were being sold off cheaply by the major utilities. The projected annual returns were 2-3% higher than those offered by the large listed wind and solar funds. They launched a roadshow with institutional investors. Basically everyone said it was a great idea but they couldn’t invest because of ESG.
Turbine lifetime is about 20 years, and the decommission costs per turbine are many tens of thousands of dollars, especially in terms of location difficulties, such a the ocean.
Further, they contains many 100s of liters of gearbox oil which much be changed regularly and removed. This is one reason why they burn so well in catastrophic failure.
Thanks David Turver, great article exposing the fraud. And it is Fraud. The data is false because most is simple assumption extrapolated and manipulated.
This report from Oxford appears to be a variant of The Iron Triangle relationship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_%28US_politics%29) that is so common nowadays in Western economies despite president Eisenhower warning us about such policy capture in his farewell address:-
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
(https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address)
One way to break the Triangle is, as you and others propose, to instigate a systematic Red Team review process to answer Juvenal's question, "Who will watch the watchmen?" or "Who will guard the guardians?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F
This is surely one of the most urgent and important tasks for Western societies in the immediate future if we are not to fall permaently into the clutches of self-serving elites whether it be for Covid or Climate Change or WHO regulations.
At the moment we are failing badly, very badly.
Regards,
John.
Who watches the watchers? Who guards the guards? | Neil Oliver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv8LI2q9KtQ
It looks like I have already made a report to Parliament on this Oxford Paper. The introduction to my analysis makes a similar comment to David’s analysis here. It says:
Smiths School of Enterprise
Oxford University
cc: Parliament
Re: Wind Power Errors and Disinformation.
Oxford University Report.
Sir,
Another report on wind power has just been issued, that again contains errors and omissions.
The greatest failing within this report, is it contains no provision for backup energy storage. We cannot install unreliable wind power without backup energy storage, otherwise the lights will go out. At present we are 100% dependent upon gas-powered electricity for backup, but when gas is phased out by 2030 or 2035, we will need an alternate backup system.
Missing out 30-50% of electrical generation system costs, is akin to misinformation by the Oxford team. It makes wind look more feasible when in reality it is likely to bankrupt the nation, both through excessive costs and through incessant blackouts. Observe the electrical supply problems in South Africa, and multiply by 100.
The Oxford Group Report.
Britain’s energy demand could be met entirely by wind and solar:
https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-09/Policy-brief-Britains-energy-demand-could-be-met-entirely-by-wind-and-solar.pdf
Ralph
.
Interesting to see they have doubled the energy demand, for 2050. I wonder - was this in response to my and your complaints about the first report?
I sent my scathing analysis to all Conservative M.Ps, on the premiss that Labour MPs are too far gone to even bother about. But half of Conservative MPs are no better - these are still the kind of people who walk out of the chamber, when Andrew Bridgen MP wants to discuss why 40,000 people have died unexpectedly this year. That is more than died from Covid, and yet MPs walk out on him, so they cannot hear the news. In great contrast, the gallery was packed to the gunnels, and it was the first time ever that cheers from the gallery could be heard on Parliament TV.
Same with renewable energy. Why would any sentient MP listen to ‘scientists’, whose first report was in error by a factor of 100%? Why was Llewellyn not dismissed from his post, and given 20 years of hard labour, breaking rocks in the Outer Hebrides? Why are these dumb-arrse ‘scientists’ rewarded for their incompetence, with more grants to produce yet more dumb-arrse reports that have no basis in reality?
Remember that these dumb-arrse report will suck many dumb-arrse politicians into backing renewable projects, with our hard earned taxes, which turn out to be completely impractical. Things like hydrogen electrolysis have never been tried at this scale before, and yet this is already being championed as a ‘pathway’ towards renewables. Can you imagine Dianne Abacus MP, trying to understand the intricacies of this report, and whether it is viable or not? This is the MP who said that 1,000 new policemen would cost the government £200,000 a year to fund - much to the amusement of the Talk Radio host. How on Earth can Dianne Abacus MP be relied upon to preside over these momentous decisions?
Ralph Ellis
This is the Dianne Abacus interview.
Sorry, this was on LBC, employing 10,000 new policemen as a cost of £300,000. As usual, she is simply making things up as she goes along - because politicians have no idea what they are doing.
The only skillset Dianne Abacus has, is keeping a straight face while lying out of her arrse, to cover up her lack of grey matter and lack of intelligence. Why oh why, is there not an examination before entry into Parliament? Would you let Dianne Abacus be an airline captain, with no entrance qualifications? So why is she allowed to run the country?
Dianne Abacus, LBC interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdDdYRvuc6w
Ralph
It’s not just academics who are blinkered. It’s the same in the financial community. I recently met a very smart chap who had a plan to launch a fund to buy gas peaker plants in the UK that were being sold off cheaply by the major utilities. The projected annual returns were 2-3% higher than those offered by the large listed wind and solar funds. They launched a roadshow with institutional investors. Basically everyone said it was a great idea but they couldn’t invest because of ESG.