$2.2B Ivanpah solar plant runs on so much NATURAL GAS, it's subject to cap and trade!

[Anonymous]

It was built with $2.2 billion in government loans and grants.



You don't need a government loan to build a real power plant — they make money.



But a solar power plant doesn't.



The thing is, despite all those mirrors, the Ivanpah solar plant doesn't even make power.



Solar power is so inefficient that Ivanpah actually has to run on natural gas -- so much so that it's now subject to cap and trade regulations!

http://www.therebel.media/_fake_2_2b_ivanpah_solar_plant">http://www.therebel.media/_fake_2_2b_iv ... olar_plant">http://www.therebel.media/_fake_2_2b_ivanpah_solar_plant

[cc]

I don't know whether to laff or cry



This yet another classic loser for the climate kooks ..... " Wynn" being a "Lose"r

[Anonymous]

It was built with $2.2 billion in government loans and grants.



You don't need a government loan to build a real power plant — they make money.



But a solar power plant doesn't.



The thing is, despite all those mirrors, the Ivanpah solar plant doesn't even make power.



Solar power is so inefficient that Ivanpah actually has to run on natural gas -- so much so that it's now subject to cap and trade regulations!

http://www.therebel.media/_fake_2_2b_ivanpah_solar_plant">http://www.therebel.media/_fake_2_2b_iv ... olar_plant">http://www.therebel.media/_fake_2_2b_ivanpah_solar_plant

If premier Wynn sees this she will waste our dollars investing in it, put us further into debt, lower our credit rating again and drive up the cost of energy even more. What worries me is how much Trudeau defends her horrible management. Let's hope he was just playing politics and will not copy her mistakes.

[Anonymous]

I don't know whether to laff or cry



This yet another classic loser for the climate kooks ..... " Wynn" being a "Lose"r

Justin and Kathleen can now begin their contest to see who can bury the taxpayer the fastest.

[Anonymous]

Wind industry big lies no 3: wind turbines are eco-friendly

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100196794/wind-industry-big-lies-no-3-wind-turbines-are-eco-friendly/">http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... -friendly/">http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100196794/wind-industry-big-lies-no-3-wind-turbines-are-eco-friendly/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2013/01/redkite.jpg">

[Anonymous]

Blowing It On the Wind

The International Energy Agency estimates that about 0.4% of global energy now comes from solar and wind. Even in 2040, with all governments implementing all of their green promises, solar and wind will make up just 2.2% of global energy.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/wind-power-wasted-subsidies-by-bj-rn-lomborg-2015-10">https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... rg-2015-10">https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/wind-power-wasted-subsidies-by-bj-rn-lomborg-2015-10

[Anonymous]

The wind industry promotes itself as better for the environment than traditional energy sources such as coal and natural gas. For example, the industry claims that wind energy reduces carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming.



But there are many ways to skin a cat. As IER pointed out last week, even if wind curbs CO2 emissions, wind installations injure, maim, and kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year in clear violation of federal law. Any marginal reduction in emissions comes at the expense of protected bird species, including bald and golden eagles. The truth is, all energy sources impact the natural environment in some way, and life is full of necessary trade-offs. The further truth is that affordable, abundant energy has made life for billions of people much better than it ever was.



Another environmental trade-off concerns the materials necessary to construct wind turbines. Modern wind turbines depend on rare earth minerals mined primarily from China. Unfortunately, given federal regulations in the U.S. that restrict rare earth mineral development and China's poor record of environmental stewardship, the process of extracting these minerals imposes wretched environmental and public health impacts on local communities. It's a story Big Wind doesn't want you to hear.



Rare Earth Horrors



Manufacturing wind turbines is a resource-intensive process. A typical wind turbine contains more than 8,000 different components, many of which are made from steel, cast iron, and concrete. One such component are magnets made from neodymium and dysprosium, rare earth minerals mined almost exclusively in China, which controls 95 percent of the world's supply of rare earth minerals.

[Anonymous]

Simon Parry from the Daily Mail traveled to Baotou, China, to see the mines, factories, and dumping grounds associated with China's rare-earths industry. What he found was truly haunting:



As more factories sprang up, the banks grew higher, the lake grew larger and the stench and fumes grew more overwhelming.



'It turned into a mountain that towered over us,' says Mr Su. 'Anything we planted just withered, then our animals started to sicken and die.'



People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed.



Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lake's radiation levels are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found.



As the wind industry grows, these horrors will likely only get worse. Growth in the wind industry could raise demand for neodymium by as much as 700 percent over the next 25 years, while demand for dysprosium could increase by 2,600 percent, according to a recent MIT study. The more wind turbines pop up in America, the more people in China are likely to suffer due to China's policies. Or as the Daily Mail put it, every turbine we erect contributes to "a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China."



Big Wind's Dependence on China's "Toxic Lakes"



The wind industry requires an astounding amount of rare earth minerals, primarily neodymium and dysprosium, which are key components of the magnets used in modern wind turbines. Developed by GE in 1982, neodymium magnets are manufactured in many shapes and sizes for numerous purposes. One of their most common uses is in the generators of wind turbines.



Estimates of the exact amount of rare earth minerals in wind turbines vary, but in any case the numbers are staggering. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.



To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT's estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science's estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines.



For perspective, America's nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America's electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States.



While nuclear storage remains an important issue for many U.S. environmentalists, few are paying attention to the wind industry's less efficient and less transparent use of radioactive material via rare earth mineral excavation in China. The U.S. nuclear industry employs numerous safeguards to ensure that spent nuclear fuel is stored safely. In 2010, the Obama administration withdrew funding for Yucca Mountain, the only permanent storage site for the country's nuclear waste authorized by federal law. Lacking a permanent solution, nuclear energy companies have used specially designed pools at individual reactor sites. On the other hand, China has cut mining permits and imposed export quotas, but is only now beginning to draft rules to prevent illegal mining and reduce pollution. America may not have a perfect solution to nuclear storage, but it sure beats disposing of radioactive material in toxic lakes like near Baotou, China.



Not only do rare earths create radioactive waste residue, but according to the Chinese Society for Rare Earths, "one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters (339,021 to 423,776 cubic feet) of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, [and] approximately 75 cubic meters (2,649 cubic feet) of acidic wastewater."



Conclusion



Wind energy is not nearly as "clean" and "good for the environment" as the wind lobbyists want you to believe. The wind industry is dependent on rare earth minerals imported from China, the procurement of which results in staggering environmental damages. As one environmentalist told the Daily Mail, "There's not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment." That the destruction is mostly unseen and far-flung does not make it any less damaging.



All forms of energy production have some environmental impact. However, it is disingenuous for wind lobbyists to hide the impacts of their industry while highlighting the impacts of others. From illegal bird deaths to radioactive waste, wind energy poses serious environmental risks that the wind lobby would prefer you never know about. This makes it easier for them when arguing for more subsidies, tax credits, mandates and government supports.



IER Policy Associates Travis Fisher and Alex Fitzsimmons authored this post.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/">http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/a ... -minerals/">http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/

[Anonymous]

I did read that China which controls almost all of the world's rare earth metals is encouraging solar panel usage.

[Anonymous]

I did read that China which controls almost all of the world's rare earth metals is encouraging solar panel usage.

China is even considering a cap and trade scheme that would reward solar panel manufacturers. Rare earth metals are a vital part of solar panels and China has about 95% of the world's supply. Get the picture? Lots of open pit mines and tailings ponds using tons of energy to produce something the West wants to feel good about themselves, but does nothing for climate.

[Anonymous]

Wind is such a waste of taxpayer resources.

Counting the cost of wind and solar

 The Australian

 Bjørn Lomborg

 23 October 2015



When considering climate change, most people think wind turbines and solar panels are a big part of the solution. But, during the next 25 years, the contribution of solar and wind power to resolving the problem will be trivial — and the cost will be enormous.



The International Energy Agency estimates that about 0.4 per cent of global energy now comes from solar and wind.



Even in 2040, with all governments implementing all of their green promises, solar and wind will make up just 2.2 per cent of global energy.



This is partly because wind and solar help to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions only from electricity generation, which accounts for 42 per cent of the total, but not from the energy used in industry, transport, buildings and agriculture.



But the main reason wind and solar power cannot be a major solution to climate change stems from an almost insurmountable obstacle: we need power when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.



This has major implications for claims about costs.



For example, wind power, we are told repeatedly, will soon be cheaper than fossil fuels — or even, as a recent global news story claims, it is already cheaper than fossil fuels in Germany and Britain.



This is mostly a mirage; large-scale wind power will not work any time soon without subsidies.



As American business magnate Warren Buffett says: "We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."



The IEA estimates that the annual bill for global wind subsidies will increase in the next 25 years, not decrease or fall to zero.



One reason is that cheaper wind in Germany and Britain is true only for new construction. Most existing coal and gas suppliers cost about half or less than wind and could run for decades; instead, we half-close them to accommodate wind.



While new, cheap German wind-energy producers cost $US80 ($110) a megawatt hour ($US0.08 a kilowatt hour), the average German spot price last year was just $US33 a megawatt hour.



More important, wind is cheaper only when the wind blows. When the wind is not blowing, wind-generated electricity is the most expensive electricity of all because it cannot be bought at any price.



Installing more wind generators makes the electricity they produce less valuable. The first wind turbine brings a slightly above-average price per kilowatt hour. But with 30 per cent market share, since all wind producers sell electricity at the same time (when the wind blows), the electricity is worth only 70 per cent of the average electricity price.



Solar prices drop even faster at similar market shares. So wind and solar generators have to be much cheaper than the average price to be competitive.



Moreover, wind and solar make fossil-fuel-generated electricity more expensive. Some people may think that is a good thing; but, if our societies are to continue functioning in cloudy, windless weather, that means relying on some fossil fuels. The IEA estimates that 56 per cent of electricity will come from fossil fuels in 2040, with nuclear and hydro accounting for another 28 per cent.



Significant wind and solar usage reduces the number of hours gas and coal generation operates; with large fixed costs, this makes every kilowatt hour more expensive.



In a real electricity market, this would result in much higher electricity costs on windless evenings. But this is politically problematic, which is why markets are often constructed to spike much less.



In Spain, gas plants were used 66 per cent of the time in 2004 but only 19 per cent of the time now, largely because of more wind use. Because the plants must be kept running 57 per cent of the time to avoid losses, many are likely to close. Across Europe, possibly 60 per cent of all gas-fired generation is at risk.



Keeping the lights on means accepting much higher prices or emulating what many European governments are beginning to do: namely, subsidising fossil-fuel plants. For example, in 2018 alone, Britain will pay nearly £1 billion ($2bn), mostly to fossil-fuel-based generators, to keep back-up capacity available for peak power usage.



Building more wind and solar generating capacity with subsidies means societies end up paying three times for power: once for the power, once for subsidies to inefficient renewables and once more to subsidise our now-inefficient fossil fuels.



Many will say: "But at least we cut CO2." That is true, although the reduction is perhaps only half of what is often touted because the back-up power needed to smooth intermittent wind and solar is often more CO2-heavy.



Moreover, we pay dearly for these cuts. In 2013, the world produced 635 terawatt hours of wind electricity and paid at least $28bn in subsidies, or $US76 per avoided tonne of CO2, and likely twice or more than that.



When the estimated damage costs of CO2 are about $US5 a tonne, and a tonne of CO2 can be cut in the EU for about $US10, we are paying a dollar to do less than 7c-13c of good for the climate.



And its positive impact on the climate is negligible.



Consider two worlds: in the first, all governments implement all their green promises, as indicated by the IEA, and increase solar and wind energy more than sevenfold by 2040; in the second, not one new solar panel or wind turbine is purchased during the next 25 years.



The difference in subsidy spending between the two worlds is more than $US2.5 trillion. Yet the difference in temperature increase by the end of the century, run on the UN climate panel's own model, would be a mere 0.0175C.



Bjorn Lomborg is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and directs the Copenhagen Consensus Centre.

The Australian

http://stopthesethings.com/2015/11/09/bjorn-lomborg-counts-the-enormous-cost-of-the-wind-power-mirage/">http://stopthesethings.com/2015/11/09/b ... er-mirage/">http://stopthesethings.com/2015/11/09/bjorn-lomborg-counts-the-enormous-cost-of-the-wind-power-mirage/

[Romero]

A Texas Utility Offers a Nighttime Special: Free Electricity



In Texas, wind farms are generating so much energy that some utilities are giving power away.



It is possible because Texas has more wind power than any other state, accounting for roughly 10 percent of the state's generation. Alone among the 48 contiguous states, Texas runs its own electricity grid that barely connects to the rest of the country, so the abundance of nightly wind power generated here must be consumed here.



"You can be green and make green," said Scott Burns, senior director for innovation at Reliant Energy, which has plans to offer incentives to increase night and weekend electricity use.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/business/energy-environment/a-texas-utility-offers-a-nighttime-special-free-electricity.html">//http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/business/energy-environment/a-texas-utility-offers-a-nighttime-special-free-electricity.html

[Anonymous]

Texas has 10,135 megawatts of installed wind-generation capacity, which is nearly three times as much as any other state. And yet, on Wednesday, all of the state's wind turbines mustered just 880 megawatts of power when electricity was needed the most. Put another way, even though wind turbines account for about 10 percent of Texas's 103,000 megawatts of summer electricity-generation capacity, wind energy was able to provide just 1.3 percent of the juice the state needed on Wednesday afternoon to keep the lights on and the air conditioners humming.



 None of this should be surprising. For years, ERCOT has counted just 8.7 percent of the state's installed wind-generation capacity as "dependable capacity at peak." What happened on Wednesday? Just 880 megawatts out of 10,135 megawatts of wind capacity — 8.68 percent — was actually moving electrons when consumers needed those electrons the most.



"the cost of building thousands of miles of transmission lines to carry wind power across Texas is now estimated at $6.79 billion, a 38 percent increase from the initial projection three years ago." What will that mean for the state's ratepayers? Higher electricity bills. Before the end of the year, the companies building the transmission lines are expected to begin applying for "rate recovery." The result, writes Galbraith, will be charges that "could amount to $4 to $5 per month on Texas electric bills, for years".



Imagine what the state's grid might look like if Texas, which produces about 30 percent of America's gas, had spent its money on natural-gas-fired electricity instead of wind. The latest data from the Energy Information Administration shows that wind-generated electricity costs about 50 percent more than that produced by natural-gas-fired generators. Thus, not only would Texas consumers be saving money on their electric bills, the state government would be earning more royalties from gas produced and consumed in the state.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/275673/texas-wind-energy-fails-again-robert-bryce">http://www.nationalreview.com/article/2 ... bert-bryce">http://www.nationalreview.com/article/275673/texas-wind-energy-fails-again-robert-bryce