Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Wind Turbines - Manufacturers' Facts!
#1
I came across this today and just had to share it with you:

Quote:Vestas advertising campaigns are based on facts. Wind power is a sustainable, predictable and clean source of energy. Substantial capacity can be built up quickly, offering the energy independence that is demanded by the world's largest and fastest-growing economies. This is why Vestas calls wind power modern energy.
http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/campaigns.aspx

I wonder if Advertising Standards know about this?

"Correlation is NOT Causation"
Reply
#2
I have seen elsewhere the phrase,

"The wind is free,
harvesting it is not."


Which I thought a good phrase.
It would seem the same could be more easily applied to tidal energy however.

Advertising standards may be easier to bring to account than unbiased peer review though,
so great point to raise Q_C.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#3
The entire enviormental scam uses the same type of "PUSHING" the facts. If one were to only look at the positive while ignoring the negative then they might have a point. I would think we could advise these people to drink acid as it is known to "clean out the pipes".
Reply
#4
[quote author=Questioning_Climate link=topic=155.msg976#msg976 date=1248900762]
I came across this today and just had to share it with you:

Quote:Vestas advertising campaigns are based on facts. Wind power is a sustainable, predictable and clean source of energy. Substantial capacity can be built up quickly, offering the energy independence that is demanded by the world's largest and fastest-growing economies. This is why Vestas calls wind power modern energy.
http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/campaigns.aspx

I wonder if Advertising Standards know about this?


[/quote]

Wind power needs to be backed by "dirty" coal and NG 24/7 to cancel out their large liabilities.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#5
My apologies Q_C this is not quite on topic, but hopefully it does illustrate
how far off wind power is concerning advertising standards...

Over at Jo Nova's blog I posted (post 68) regarding the pleasing
asthetics and engineering of wind power as espoused by someone else.
I would suggest most of the other comments, particularly Bob Webster's are well worth reading as well.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/30/funded-arrogance/

Where does this all leave Brendan H and his soon to be completed wind farm. ?
Well, he like the rest of his countrymen will notice that,

a) A lot of land has been used up to build a “wind farm”.
Yees, they are ugly, take the green spectacles off and really look at what you’ve done to the environment,
the sqelch under your shoes was probably once a bird (bird pate so to speak).

b) Most of the time the wind will not be “right” for power generation, so the wind turbines will rarely generate the amounts hoped for.

c) The gas powered “back up” will be running quite a lot of the time, but also keep powering up and down, incurring extra costs.

d) In the not too distant future (8 to 10 years at most usually) the turbines will need replacing, which is to put it politely DAMNED EXPENSIVE.

e) More people will be unemployed as “green jobs” cost ordinary jobs, check Spain out.

f) Brendan H and all the rest of us will be paying for, a conventional power generation plant (not a particularly cheap one either), the wind farm and it’s upkeep, more unemployed people, and improvements in the power grid to loose less of the small amount generated by wind.
Add all these up and “power” will cost somewhere in the region of
2 1/2 to 3 times more than it used to.
NOT a clever thing to do in a recession.


Funnily enough the reply I got was that I am an a/hole, and to f. off.........
Not an answer, and I have not as of yet.
(the original comment was moderated, snipped but a later repetition
of the A word has not been moderated...Ho-hum.)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#6
What is really funny is that those windmills stacked like trees for miles around are very anti-green,since they kill birds,make a lot of noise and damage the environment with roads and transmission lines installed.

These environmentalists are a weird lot.

:Smile
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#7
SST, what about the poor ole bats that fly into them?  Bat-mince?  Birds are two a penny... lol

Derek, I think it is close enough to topic for forgiveness  Wink

Actually, the main points I picked up on were 'based on facts', 'predictable' 'energy independence' 'world's largest and fastest-growing economies', 'This is why Vestas calls wind power MODERN energy'.  Call me syndical (no, don't bother, 'cause I am!) but these points are hardly "facts".  I would define them as white-lies at best!  Talk about spin!  There is more spin in this statement than the turbines themselves!

If I described myself using their criteria, well ... we wont' go there! But being serious and British, or more serious, their publicity, described as a campaign, is very close, if not definitely, a series of lies.  But then, that's not news in the AGW arena!

I just thought it rather amusing (had it not been for the serious nature of the whole scam).

My bosses need to take heed.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander!  You can sell anything with the right words.
"Correlation is NOT Causation"
Reply
#8
Has anyone seen a true accounting  of the carbon footprint of a wind turbine?  I have been looking for one for a while.  Clearly it takes a lot of electricity to make the steel and other metals used in a turbine, lots of diesel to carry the parts to the site and to carry out the sitework.  The maintenance and lubricants, etc use fuel and other petroleum products.  The power must be carried by a power transmission grid that must be extended to the site and maintained at some cost of power and petrofuels.  The lifetime of a turbine is far from infinite (I would guess 20 years under optimal conditions and with no exposure to salt water).  Further, turbine must be engineered to the worst weather they are to face in their functional lifetime,  Were someone foolish enough to build a wind farm in the Gulf or on the Atlantic coast that would be a Cat 4/5 hurricane or a week-long 100 mph gale.  That is a lot more steel, aluminum, and fiberglass than you need just to function in a 20 knot wind.  Even then, a 100 year storm like Katrina may come over your wind farm and destroy it as Katrina crippled the Gulf oil platforms.  If you amortize all that over the relatively short and usually only intermittently  productive lifetime of a turbine, then add in the cost of building the backup plants that will be needed when, as frequently is the case, the wind is too weak or too strong for the turbine to function, could a wind turbine even break even?

Environmentalists always fret about externalities, except when it comes to "renewable energy."
Reply
#9
There is no such thing as renewable energy! We recieve energy from the sun that is or has been stored in a form that can be converted into a for we can use to provide the energy we need. It takes energy of one form to provide energy in a useable form with a loss of energy in the process. Winds and tides even river power is free but what is the cost of harnessing those free forms of energy. The manufacturers facts are little more than lies depending on how you view their facts.
Reply
#10
what kills me is the greenies spout off how great wind power is, that is 'renewable', 'sustainable', and 'eco friendly'.  That is all fine and dandy, but notice they never mention how much it costs and how long it will take to recuperate the initial investment ? 

Plus, didn't man used to use wind to sail across the atlantic, and realizing how unreliable it is, how come now most of the ocean liners are diesel powered and not wind powered ?

and the part that really bugs me the most, if the greenies are pushing mankind to use wind power and to eliminate coal/natural gas, I do honestly fear for the next generation.  Mankind has progressed nicely using fossil fuel, but limiting energy to wind power only, isn't that handicapping the next generation from progressing ?
Reply
#11
Wind was used to pump water but required massive reservoirs for storage during times of little wind. There are uses for wind that are not critically time dependent. However the start up costs and replacement costs make it cost prohibitive for  an investment as it becomes a money pit requiring more inflow of money than is returned. There are incidents where a windmill used more energy from the grid than it produced because it requires power to run the controll processors that monitor operation telling the equipment when to generate and when to freewheel during high winds or low wind conditions. The angle of the vanes has to be controlled  for optimum results and reduced risk during excessive winds. Some think that is what caused some fires and collapses to occur.
Reply
#12
of all the books i've read, wind/solar are a niche market, it will not replace coal/natural gas anytime soon.  but the way the greenies are complaining, they make it sound like 'use wind/solar now or man is doomed to die'.

Reply
#13
Friends:

If wind power were economically competitive with fossil fuels, then oil tankers would be sailing ships. 

I take the liberty of drawing attention to an Annual Prestigious Lecture I was given the privilege of being asked to provide three years ago.  It is titled:
“A suggestion for meeting the UK Government’s renewable energy target because the adopted use of windfarms cannot meet it”
and it can be accessed in pdf form from
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprin...cture.html

The lecture covers each point made above and others.

I am especially amused by the statement that
“Vestas calls wind power modern energy’.
Because my lecture includes the following facts.

Wind power has been used for centuries.  Wind energy powered most of the world’s shipping for thousands of years, and primitive wind turbines powered pumps (notably in the Netherlands and England) and mills throughout Europe for centuries. 

Vertical-axis windmills to mill corn were first developed by the Persians around 1500 BC, and they were still in use in the 1970’s in the Zahedan region.  The technology had spread to Northern Africa and Spain by 500 BC. 

The horizontal-axis wind turbine was invented in Egypt and Greece around 300 BC.  It had 8 to 10 wooden beams rigged with sails, and a rotor which turned perpendicular to the wind direction.  This type of wind turbine later became popular in Portugal and Greece. 

Around 1200 AD, the crusaders built and developed the post-mill for milling grain.  The turbine was mounted on a vertical post and could be rotated on top the post to keep the turbine facing the wind. 

This post-mill technology was first adopted for electricity generation in Denmark in the late 1800’s.  The technology soon spread to the U.S. where it was used to pump water and to irrigate crops across the Great Plains.  During World War I, some American farmers rigged wind turbines to each generate 1 kW of DC current.

But wind power was abandoned when the greater energy intensity in fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine.

So, if “Vestas calls wind power modern energy” then I suppose Vestas thinks the steam engine is futuristic technology.

Richard
Reply
#14
Richard:
We are living in the new age world where historical facts are rewritten to support ones vision and I am going to take advantage of this to invent a horse drawn cart. Just think of the potential to draw funding from governments and companies that want to be seen as green. I just need to publicize the fact that this is a new devise to get a patent then apply for funding for production. If PETA complains I will design one that children can pull as a team to promote team work and cooperation.
Reply
#15
Mike Davis:

Thankyou for that.  It gets very depressing trying to combat distortions of energy issues.  Humour is a valuable correction to the depression.

Richard
Reply
#16
Richard :

amen !  I guess I should learn to articulate myself better  Smile

The reason why man moved from wind to 'fossil fuels' is that fossil fuels provide more bang for the buck, literally.  Currently, it is far cheaper and gives off more energy than wind.  And you're right, if wind was so great, then why did man move from wind to other forms of energy ?

To me, that is typical of the greenies, neglecting history.  Either they are too stupid or ignorant or both, but those that don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. 

Reply
#17
I can see one of those windmill things from my kitchen window. Hasn't moved for the last three days, and hardly turned at all over the last two weeks due to high pressure system over SW UK.

Hope they are satisfied with their investment.  :Smile (subsidy probably compensates anyway  >Sad )
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#18
side note :

I just wanted to show how hypocritical the greenies are.

Last year, in Ft. McMurray, about 500 ducks died in the oil sands tailing pond.  The oil companies say their machinery to scare off the ducks failed, hence the dead ducks.  The greenies got their panties in a knot and complained loudly about the oil sands and the death of the ducks.

Well, here is a fine example of how hypocritical the greenies are.  Bats have died thanks to the wind turbines, but yet not one single peep was made from the greenies.  On the other hand, 500 ducks die and the greenies have a field day.  Here is an indirect article from my work regarding the deaths of the bats and windmills :

http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/utoday/september28-09/bats

I noticed that the article did not state how many bats died, this could have been going on for years.  But isn't it strange that because windmills are 'green' that it is ok for birds/bats to die but yet 500 dumb ducks die in the oil sands and that is not ok ?

The hypocracy continues ....  >Sad
Reply
#19
The Audobon group in the UK  recently reported on the number of birds killed due to wind turbines and they promote wind energy as being green.
I recall being near a PETA protest and being interviewed by the local TV station that wanted to know how I felt about the protest. My reply was they were hypocrites if they eat meat or have pets that they leave alone during the day because both of those things involve cruelty to animals. The station used that segment during the news that night and repeated it the next demonstration that PETA conducted. Lucky for me I was in Cleveland on vacation with the wife's family because I could not have voiced my opinion in public due to my position with the company I worked for. It was tough to be non commented and opinionated at the same time.
Reply
#20
[quote author=Mike Davis link=topic=155.msg1815#msg1815 date=1254180242]
The Audobon group in the UK  recently reported on the number of birds killed due to wind turbines and they promote wind energy as being green.
I recall being near a PETA protest and being interviewed by the local TV station that wanted to know how I felt about the protest. My reply was they were hypocrites if they eat meat or have pets that they leave alone during the day because both of those things involve cruelty to animals. The station used that segment during the news that night and repeated it the next demonstration that PETA conducted. Lucky for me I was in Cleveland on vacation with the wife's family because I could not have voiced my opinion in public due to my position with the company I worked for. It was tough to be non commented and opinionated at the same time.
[/quote]

I know how you feel, at work/campus, they are constantly pushing 'sustainability', 'green this and green that', but that is totally against the position I take.

I used to have an 'anti green' signature on my email, but someone complained about it so I was asked to remove it.

anyways, I cannot believe the hypocracy.  So birds dieing by windmill is ok because the windmill is green, but birds dieing in a tailing pond isn't ok because big oil is 'evil' ??  What a load of crap.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Gun Control Facts Sunsettommy 6 7,872 03-02-2017, 10:21 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Climate Facts for Policymakers Questioning_Climate 0 2,994 02-27-2012, 06:08 AM
Last Post: Questioning_Climate
  Roger Helmer (UK MEP) speaking on wind turbines Questioning_Climate 19 21,148 09-22-2011, 12:01 AM
Last Post: Richard111



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)