Carbon Pollution And Green Energy

This fossil fuel power plant is powering more than 100,000 people in the Boulder area. It produces essentially zero pollution.

This is what it looks like in the morning, when water vapor condenses in the cold air.

This is what crooks in the press want you to think CO2 looks like.

These are motionless wind turbines at NREL, producing electricity for exactly zero people.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Carbon Pollution And Green Energy

  1. John F. Hultquist says:

    Here is a chart showing Hydro providing reliable power:

    … from the BPA — along the Columbia River.
    The unreliable wind energy is the bouncy green line at the bottom.

    • Frank K. says:

      Interesting graph, John. If you integrated the power curves, you’d see that the amount of energy produced by wind (in MJ) is almost nothing compared to the other two sources.

  2. CO2isLife says:

    Dishonesty is nothing new to the climate alarmists.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry

    Climate “Science” on Trial; The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science

  3. GeologyJim says:

    Solar and wind energy are absolutely worthless anywhere, except in extremely remote locations where “connection to the grid” is prohibitively expensive. Stock pond windmills make lots of sense for watering livestock in the central prairies. Nineteenth century technology for 19th century economy.

    For residential/commercial applications in suburban/urban areas, wind/solar always have to be backed up by base-load (reliable 24/7/365) sources (coal, natural gas, nuclear). So they contribute essentially nothing to overall grid power.

    Greenies don’t seem to be able to understand any of this simple stuff. They are Stuck On Stupid.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Solar and Wind are niche market items. An electric fence charger and windmill pumping water at a remote location for livestock makes sense… OR a diesel generator.

      Neither Wind or Solar are NOT ‘new technology’
      The first known use of wind dates back 5,000 years to Egypt. The first recorded windmill design originated in Persia around a.d. 500-900. In 1839 Alexandre Edmond Becquerel discovered the photovoltaic effect. On April 25, 1954, Bell Labs announces the invention of the first practical silicon solar cell.

      In 1800, Volta invented the first true battery, known as the voltaic pile. Prior to that an early battery dates back to the Parthian empire and is believed to be 2,000 years old.

      Any attempt by warmists say these are ‘new’ and therefore fast developing tech is incorrect.

  4. Robertv says:

    Nice zoom. 8 km more or less?

  5. Colorado Wellington says:

    Bill Nye The Climate Science Guy got a new gig selling Persil Proclean in a Super Bowl commercial. He got his lab coat dirty and they cleaned it. That’s good. Global warming hustlers have to make a living somehow and they need their lab coats for the next detergent commercial.

    • RAH says:

      This Colts fan never thought he would be for the Patriots winning anything ever but the lefts reaction to Brady and others of the franchise who are friends with Trump made what had previously been unthinkable come to pass.

      On another note, Lady Gaga is smarter than I gave her credit for. I didn’t watch the game nor the halftime but the reports are she behaved her self.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Lab coat look grey to me.

      If that the bet Persil can do… Forget it !!

    • RAH says:

      BTW I’m outta here. Four stopper in the Detroit area. Done it before and know that it is highly unlikely I will be able to make it back home before I run out of my 14 hours so I’ll be sleeping in the truck.

      Here is what an extended cab pickup looked like after it whipped in front of a big truck and slammed on it’s brakes. Just a little reminder for those that think it’s a good idea to pull that trick. Think again.

  6. Mtminer says:

    Tony have you seen this!! The cat is totally out of the bag!!! PresidentbTrump please cut off their funding!!

    • Gail Combs says:

      We have been aware of it for at least a year. Actually more since I have been writing about Agenda 21 for several years.

      • Mtminer says:

        Yes but now we have the smoking gun to with hold funding to the UN and open investigations into the criminal activities that the IPCC is behind and their co-conspirators at NASA and NOAA.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Yikes! Would it be appropriate to use the term “Eurotrash”?

  7. Mtminer says:

    Start the arrest warrants and the indictments!

  8. b fagan says:

    Very convincing. The photograph you claim is a power plant near Boulder very clearly doesn’t show the invisible SO2 emissions, the invisible mercury emissions, the invisible CO2 emissions. So there must be no emissions.

    Your still photograph of wind turbines “at NREL” doesn’t show them moving. So all the investors making money building wind farms must be completely fooled about wind power.

    Very convincing. Well done.

  9. Eric Simpson says:

    Those “motions of wind turbines” kill birds, viciously:

    They also kill bats, by the millions, but not in the way you’d expect. The bats realize that they an maneuver through the blades without getting hit, unlike the birds half the time. The problem, though, is that there is a super low pressure zone behind the blades that causes the bats’ lungs to explode.

    These are leftist loons that are about have their “march of scientists” and they are loons that are promoting with wind monsters that are killing birds wholesale, and may many bird species, and possibly some bats species, to go extinct:

  10. Eric Simpson says:

    So I clicked “Post Comment” again instead of “Browse” to select image!!
    here’s the image of the leftist loons that will make up the march of scientists:

  11. Gail Combs says:

    Censorship strikes again.

    Look at the links HERE

  12. AndyG55 says:

    Of the 8 co-writers, NONE of them has the code or the data.

    That can ONLY mean that NONE of them have actually checked Tom Karl’s work.

    I wish them luck with that, when the legal proceeding start ;-)

  13. AndyG55 says:

    Just found this graph.

    Apparently UAH v6 is pretty much an exact match for NOAA Star v3.0 satellite data

    Well done Roy.

  14. Kris Johanson says:

    Some random thoughts on Wind power:
    The main problem with utility-size solar and wind is high Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) – caused by a combination of high capital cost (CAPEX) and low Power Factor (online percentage).

    Wind, especially, has a very high CAPEX – practically as high as Nuclear. There’s a huge real estate factor, plus the towers are immensely huge and require 30-ft deep reinforced concrete foundations. There’s a lot of permitting and site work involved. Avian, noise, and visual are big permitting issues. Roads and underground interconnecting electrical facilities must be built-out. Pads and foundations must often be built on difficult terrain. The O&M cost is also high; much higher than coal-or-gas-fired O&M per kW.

    As a result, the IRR (internal rate of return) for a wind plant is not very high. Without tax credits it wouldn’t be possible.

    Also, these facilities are always rated on “nameplate” capacity, which is highly misleading. The huge Alta facility in the Mohave desert cost billions of dollars, occupies something like 3,000 acres, and has a “nameplate” of 1,500 MW. However, their Power Factor is officially listed at 30% (probably generous), which means you really get 1,500 x 30% = 450 MW. A 450MW gas-fired, combined cycle plant would have a CAPEX of about 1/10th as much and you wouldn’t see it from the freeway.

    The Power Factor for onshore wind is typically only about 25%. You’re only generating power 25% of the time. Offshore has a bit higher Power Factor, but the costs of development & construction are higher, too.

    I admit, the turbines are beautiful from a strictly engineering standpoint, but they’re not universally welcomed due to esthetics.

    The other major drawback is the variability of power produced, and incorporating it into the power grid. Power is not necessarily available when it would be of greatest value to the grid.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      I show this one to my students in Principles of Engineering just to get them thinking.

    • Robertv says:

      But look at all the useless jobs it has created and those of the future to take them down.

      • AndyG55 says:

        How does one remove a thousand tonnes of heavily reinforced concrete from the ground?

        They will not be cleaned up, not properly, anyway.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      A good synopsis, Kris. Random maybe but highly relevant for certain.

      As an engineer, I’ve been talking to lay wind aficionados about these issues for a long time myself. The closest most of them have gotten to these huge structures was from a highway. They never stood underneath one of them as I think at least some of them would appreciate the tremendous forces, construction costs and maintenance difficulties.

      Some of my “progressive” Boulder acquaintances enjoy working on their own cars. I like to remind them that doing maintenance on a wind turbine machinery is like having their cars mounted inside a gigantic tube, swinging and vibrating 300 ft. high the wind, where they’d have to climb a ladder every time they wanted to do even the most trivial repair. Sometimes I take the analogy further and point out that even if they managed to keep the cars in working order they couldn’t use them if there was too much or too little wind.

      Some of the practical guys get it, despite their “progressive” energy beliefs. Individuals who get most of the mechanical work in their lives done by other people usually don’t.

      • Kris Johanson says:

        Agreed. There’s no appreciation for how big these things are, and how much they actually cost to develop and construct.

        • Kris Johanson says:

          Note the truck is carrying just ONE BLADE

        • Kris Johanson says:

          Foundation details w/40′ deep rock anchors

          • AndyG55 says:

            How are they going to get rid of those things once subsidies and feed-in rules are removed and wind energy dies a natural death.

            The people who snagged the subsidies will have “gone bush”, and it will be up to the taxpayer to tidy up after this insult to human intelligence.

        • Kris Johanson says:

          Heavily reinforced foundation

        • Kris Johanson says:

          This rotor weighs 81,000 lbs and has a diameter of 258 feet. This is in So. California

        • Kris Johanson says:

          Final picture to illustrate size/complexity:
          This is just the gearbox, not even the generator.

          Each of these units has a “nameplate” of 1.5 MW. So at 25% Power Factor (= % available due to wind variability, scheduled downtime, etc), you would get 1.5MW x 25% = 370kW per wind turbine. In round numbers, that’s about 400 hp, or about what your car engine produces.

          The point is, if you had an industrial facility that needed, say, 50MW – installing wind-generated power is just about THE LAST OPTION you would choose – even if you had the real estate – and even if you could get it permitted.

          There are standard 50MW gas turbine packages that are almost off-the-shelf, and that you could stick in a single building.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Yep, that sometimes convinces the brighter citizens of the People’s Republic of Boulder. Climb up a 300 ft. ladder through a steel tube to work in a confined space on a “transmission” that’s many times bigger and heavier than their Audi or Subaru. At least those that are not complete idiots understand that anything beyond routine maintenance cannot be done up there and the gearbox has to be brought down.

            Wind Farm Owners: How To Cut The Impact Of Gearbox Failure

            Wind farm owners can face hefty bills —up to $500,000 —if turbine gearboxes fail. This is the finding of a new report from an insurance specialist.

            This month, renewable energy insurer GCube has published a report called ‘Grinding Gearboxes’ about the impact of gearbox failure on wind farm owners and investors. It has also highlighted a few key steps that asset managers should take to mitigate the impacts of these failures.

            This is part of a series of reports called ‘Global Trends in Wind Turbine Downtime Events’ that is seeking to quantify the risks and financial impacts of failures of different turbine parts. This follows its report ‘Breaking Blades’ that came out last December. Read more on that one here.

            Here are some of those key gearbox statistics:
            – Gearboxes constitute 13% of the overall value of a typical onshore wind turbine.
            – There are approximately 175,000 geared turbines in operation in 86 countries worldwide.
            – There are 1,200 reported gearbox failures each year, meaning one failure per 145 turbines.
            – The cost of these failures is typically $200,000 to $300,000, though can be up to $500,000.


          • Robertv says:

            So wind power in this form is unsustainable. Looks to me a deliberate way to bankrupt a country.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I’m still trying to wade through some of it.

      Time, time… gotta go do some laps soon !

    • AndyG55 says:

      I particularly like this sentence on the “about ” page

      “The more I read, the more I realised I (and, basically, the people of the world) had been ingeniously duped by an activist clique of pseudo-scientists driven and supported by an overarching political agenda – “The Cause”.

  15. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Tony Heller played, and will hopefully continue to play, a crucial role in deciphering and ending the enslavement of humanity with more than seven decades of false science.

    Climate deception is only the latest feature of one-world government’s UN’s Agenda 21/2030. The roots of this plan were hidden from the public with a news blackout of events in SE Asia after Hiroshima & Nagasaki were destroyed on 6 & 9 AUG 1945. Stalin’s USSR troops:

    1. Immediately invaded Korea and Manchuria

    2. Captured Japan’s atomic bomb plant at Konan, Korea

    3. Shot down a US B-29 bomber over Konan, holding the crew for negotiations in Sept 1945

    4. Gave Stalin sole possession of the world’s remaining inventory of atomic bombs, and

    5. A winning argument* for world leaders to save themselves and the world from nuclear annihilation by:
    _ a.) Uniting nations and national Academies of Sciences under the UN on 24 OCT 1945
    _ b.) Using Dr. Carl von Weizsacker’s flawed definition of “nuclear binding energy” to hide the source of energy in atomic bombs from the public – NEUTRON REPULSION
    _ c.) Giving phoney Nobel or Crafoord Prizes to scientists/politicians who tricked the public with supposedly scientific evidence of:
    _ c1) Yukawa’s Standard Nuclear Model
    _ c2) Fowler’s Model of Element Synthesis
    _ c3) Wasserburg’s Model of Solar System Formation
    _ c4) Gore/UN IPCC’s Model of CO2-induced Global Warming

    * Stalin’s winning argument for uniting nations and National Acadenies of Sciences: “Better Red Than Dead.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *