The Wind Industry: always and everywhere the result of massive & endless subsidies

Posted: August 3, 2015 by oldbrew in Energy, wind

[image credit:]

[image credit:]

Another no-punches-pulled analysis from StopTheseThings (STT). Is this really what people want?

In yesterday’s post – The Wind Industry: Always and Everywhere the Result of Massive & Endless Subsidies (Part 1) – we covered the fact that the Australian wind industry exists – and ONLY exists – for one single purpose: to wallow in a subsidy stream which will hit A$3 billion annually in 2019; and continue at that colossal rate until 2031.

From hereon, the cost of the greatest subsidy rort in the history of the Commonwealth will exceed A$45 billion – every last cent of which will be recovered from Australian power consumers through retail power bills.

Faced with a recommendation from the Senate Inquiry into the great wind power fraud, that the mandated subsidy – in the form of renewable energy certificates (RECs) – should be limited to a period of 5 years – rather than running from 2001 to 2031 – the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers are all howling about their “doom”.

The response has left STT just a little perplexed.

You see, the impression given by the wind industry and its worshippers is that wind power outfits are driven by a kind of ‘divine altruism’, under which their only objective is to power the world for free, while saving the planet from the ‘dreaded’ CO2 gas; and otherwise spreading health, wealth and happiness all over the planet.

Read the rest here.

  1. hunter says:

    Great article. I gave a h/t to you for the article over at Lucia’s blackboard.

    [reply] thanks – STT did all the work though 🙂

  2. oldbrew says:

    Are the economics of renewables self-defeating?

    ‘The hours in which solar and wind farms produce the most — such as midday for solar when the sun is strongest — are precisely the same hours that those farms depress the wholesale electricity price, because higher supplies flatten prices.’

    So if they generate a lot at non-peak times the selling price can dive towards zero or even negative.

  3. Boyfromtottenham says:

    Can anyone please tell me why the Australian power generation industry puts up with the RET (the law that forces them to pay 3 times the going rate for ‘renewable’ energy), when it s clearly going to send them broke? Maybe if more folk understood how this scam really works, they might be less starry-eyed about AGW.

  4. oldbrew, but I thought that the renewable generators got paid the same rate regardless of demand (at least I think they do in Oz), so the normal laws of economics don’t apply. It’s the traditional power generators that have to pay, and are going broke. Who dreamed this crap up?

  5. Berényi Péter says:

    spreading health, wealth and happiness

    This is how wind turbine noise looks like.

    Responses of the Ear to Infrasound and Wind Turbines

    There has been a widely held view that the infrasound at the levels produced by wind turbines cannot influence the ear because they are below the threshold for human hearing. Our study shows this view is incorrect.

    So called “outer hair cells” do frequency selective adaptive amplification in the inner ear, which is indispensable for proper hearing in a noisy environment. This function is disrupted by the enormous low frequency noise emitted by wind turbines.

  6. tchannon says:

    The vibration will follow the usual curve and is a problem. Anyone who ought to know better needs a strong does of sustained buffeting. This works even if the ears are not involved.

    As I may have written before there is a strong governmental motive for playing this down: government is in charge of many huge systems which produce vibration. Railways, aircraft, regulating heavy industry, marine, military, infrastructure.

    Notice one missing from that list, road. The reason is the small vehicles where short of infrastructure idiocy (eg. road humps) there is much less very low frequency vibration production.

    The first move is simple, in the context of large machinery switch from A-weighting to C-weighting.

    From a legal standpoint this will involve common law and hence there must be an injured body. Ear damage trivially meets this requirement.
    A lesser situation is unreasonable behaviour, a judgement call. Theft is another and might run, enjoyment of peace. Courts are reluctant to set presidents.