Wind Power Another Epic Fail This Time New Zealand

New Zealand Wind Energy report riddled with flaws

Same story, different country and the lies and spin about the real costs of renewable energy are being pushed in New Zealand by the Green evangelists about how much money people will save with the Green Energy revolution, and as usual it’s the same tired old lies Chris Huhne speaks in Britain about people financially being better off with bird choppers.

Ignored as always with wind power is what happens on days when there is no wind or too much wind, the turbines are frozen solid  or there is no demand for their power.

The report issued by the New Zealand Wind Energy Association claiming that New Zealanders could be $390 per annum better off with 20% wind energy is riddled with flaws and makes a number of very dubious assumptions, says Bryan Leyland, energy commentator and member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

“The most dubious assumption is that carbon dioxide will be costed at $50 or $100 per tonne. This is a key assumption and without it, their whole economic argument collapses. In Europe, the current carbon price is about €7.5 per tonne and falling rapidly. Everyone agrees that there is now no chance that Kyoto will be extended or that a new agreement will occur before 2020 – if ever. At the same time, more revelations are coming out about the dubious science behind the whole global warming myth and, with economies all over the world in serious trouble, the prospect of them saddling their consumers and industries with carbon charges is decreasing rapidly. The world has not warmed the last 10 to 15 years and it is almost certain that the world has entered a sunspot driven cooling period.

“The next dubious assumption is that they assume gas will increase to $17 per gigajoule. In the USA (and soon in Europe and the UK) gas prices are falling rapidly due to the development of shale gas which has massively increased reserves. Even if there were no more gas discoveries in New Zealand, we could import liquefied natural gas for less than $17/GJ,” said Mr Leyland.

“Finally, they assume that wind generation could supply 800,000 plug-in electric vehicles. This is nonsense. Wind generation is unpredictable and electric cars must be charged every day. So additional – probably gas-fired – generation would be needed and this is likely to supply more than half the power needed by the electric vehicles.

“The report uses an economic model of New Zealand which is totally unsuited to analysing the effect of 20% energy generation from wind. Any model that does not take into account the intermittent and seasonal nature of wind and its effect on power prices and the fact that, in a dry year, hydro cannot backup wind, is worthless. The model makes no allowance for the fact that over peak demand periods, only about 10% of the wind generation can be relied on. It also does not consider the need for extra transmission lines and the poor efficiency of the gas fired power stations that must be built to back up wind. For example, one study in the United States showed that, in Texas, a large amount of wind energy results in a tiny reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

“This flawed report reflects little credit on the Infometrics and on the New Zealand Wind Energy Association. It does not alter the fact that wind is expensive, requires backup, and has only a small effect on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide–which is, in any event, an entirely beneficial gas that causes plants to grow,” Mr Leyland concluded.

The wind turbine in its current incarnation is just an expensive white elephant that ruins landscapes and blights people’s lives, little then surprise that the whole economically unviable renewables industry is in global decline.

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on November 29, 2011, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Global Warming, Green Lies, Green Taxation, Renewables and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.

  1. 1. This is New Zealand not Europe or the US. All there Gas is imported so his argument is silly.
    2. No one on earth but this guy thinks that wind will be the only generating source. He appearently thinks that there is no power grid in new Zealand
    3. He believes in massive world wide conspiracies.
    4. He thinks that increase Co2 Helps plants. (it actually helps weeds a little)
    5. He forgets that Energy also has peak and low seasons.

    I’m sorry but why did you quote this guy again?
    Where is the link to the report that you think is so bad?
    Why do you think linking yourself is useful?
    and can you point out a single power generating method that doesn’t “blight the landscape and peoples lives”?

  2. Furor Teutonicus

    XX by the Green evangelists about how much money people will save with the Green Energy revolution, XX

    Excuse me whilst I have a fit of hysterical laughter.

    Vattenfall here, have just informed us that our electric will be going up by around 5 to 7% to pays for these bastard wind things, and to cover the costs induced by that damn commy bitch, FDJ Tussi and (ex?) SED/Stassi functionary Merkel, to close down the nukes.

    • How much have gas prices increased in the last year? Coal? Oil?
      How much will the wind increase?

      You don’t build power plants for the costs of the now. You build them for the projected costs of the plants life time.

      For people who care so much about economics they certainly have spent very little time thinking about it.

      • Furor Teutonicus

        XX How much have gas prices increased in the last year? Coal? XX

        0 (ZERO) percent.

        And why should THAT be of interest? It is the scum Untermensch running the electric companies that have put the prices up to pay for their wee windmills, and to get out of nuke power, NOT the coal, oil and gas producers.

        Nuclear power? YES PLEASE!

      • Thank you showing how much you’ve looked into the matter.

        FYI Nuclear power is great. However, it is expensive to build and expensive to produce. More expensive than Wind by far.

        Stop look at the environmental aspects of wind and actually look up the projected costs to build and to produce. Your costs would have gone up much more to build a nuclear plant. However, you would have ignored it then.

        Don’t let your anti-environmental bigotry get in the way of common sense.

      • Furor Teutonicus

        XX Your costs would have gone up much more to build a nuclear plant. XX

        You miss the point entirely, and willfully.

        We do not NEED to build nukes. We have enough already. What we are paying for through higher electricity prices, is the CLOSING of perfectly, good and servicable nukes that still have DECADES more use in them.

      • With respect you have willfully missed the obvious.

        Power use and need is exponentially on the rise. That is obvious. We need power and the quickest and cheapest way to add new power to the grid is wind. (or hydro electric if it was available)

        and if the above wasn’t true (it is) nuclear power is still much much more expensive than wind generation and may other power generating methods.

      • Furor Teutonicus

        XX We need power and the quickest and cheapest way to add new power to the grid is wind. XX

        ENTIRELY false.

        Stop closing down perfectly viable READY built (so no costs except for maintanance, which those wind monstrositys have AS WELL(!)), nukes and run them at full capacity instead of farting about at 24 to 25% output.

      • What country do you live in???? Because we could be talking about 2 entirely different places.

        Also I hope you understand that Nuclear power plants have a life span and they are very very expensive to fix.

        Every power plant has maintenance. The important question you should be asking is how much. What do you think has more 100 generator on a pole or a nuclear reactor with radio active waste that has to be disposed of.

        You also may not now that unlike some other types of generation nuclear reactors cannot safety vary it’s power out put. You have to keep them at a consistent level at all point’s in time and the power has to be used. Long story short you ramp it up to max. Also many power plants have reactors cycled down for maintenance that takes some time.

        As to Vattenfall you really need to look things up. They are masters at the green spin from what I’ve read and they had to close some plants due to safety problems and
        fires. The government was going to shut them down because of the safety record. Fires at a nuclear plant is a BIG PROBLEM. Now I don’t claim to know everything but there is more then meets the eye going on.

      • Furor Teutonicus

        XX What country do you live in???? XX

        The only one worth living in.


      • Ah that makes a lot more sense.
        Closing the Nukes due due to fukishema was a stupid and silly over-reaction by politicians.

        That’s why what you were saying didn’t make sense to me.

  3. ^^^^ This Furor Teutonics, aka Von Spreuth, is the crudest Walter Mitty ever to tarnish the blog of another. An ex fish gutter, it won’t be long before he is boasting of fictitious, heroic exploits and dangerous assignments as a German secret agent. Oh, boy!

  1. Pingback: Wind Power Another Epic Fail This Time New Zealand « Energy Sources – The Facts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: