How Green Is My Industrial Wind Turbine?

With an average lifespan of only fifteen years, running at max 30% output, an industrial windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.

Sadly however, such facts that contradict the conventional-climate-wisdom of the day matter little in the ideological, groupthink echo charmer of the great global warming swindle/religion.


60 tonne Coking coal, Steel and cement wind turbine

Because wind power fails when the wind stops blowing, 100% of its capacity has to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuels which run constantly in the background to balance the grid and prevent blackouts when wind power output collapses:


Image by Josh @Cartoonsbyjosh


The energy required for a helicopter to de-ice all the blades on a wind farm must outweigh any supposed saving in CO2 by a factor of 100 or more. Notwithstanding that no wind farm has saved a gram of CO2 due to construction and the necessary spinning reserve.




Windmills kill millions of birds (often rare) and bats every year.

Where’s the outrage from the ‘greens’, the supposed protectors of Mother Nature?
There is none, because being ‘green’ is not about the environment anymore, rather – politics, sanctimony, self-loathing, misanthropy, capitalist hatred, power and opportunity.

If greens love nature, why aren’t they more concerned about carpeting pristine landscapes with industrial wind turbines?


imagePristine land needed to replace all Coal, Natural Gas and Oil based electricity generation.



The global warming scare has been cover for a massive transfer of funds from taxpayers to green carpetbaggers, thanks to headline-seeking, vote hungry politicians trying to take credit for solving a “catastrophe” that simply does not empirically exist.

The uselessness of ‘unreliable’ wind and solar energy, hastily rolled out to “save the planet”, is being slowly and painfully discovered at enormous cost to western economies and to the environment.

Sceptics have been warning of this for years. However, deep-green “save the planet” sanctimony has largely triumphed in the echelons of the political, media and social elite, to the detriment of the environment and the poorest in society who now suffer ‘energy poverty’.

A worthy  maxim to note: The only difference between conservatives (sceptics) who warned of the green energy disaster, and the Left (global warming alarmists) is time … and lots and lots and lots of other-peoples-money.


See also :

• Wind Power: A token gesture to the folly of green madness
• Shock News : Green Energy Not Fit for the Grid

13 Comments on “How Green Is My Industrial Wind Turbine?”

  1. oldbrew says:

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    Industrialising parts of the countryside is never going to do anyone except subsidy harvesters any good.


  2. Graeme No.3 says:

    There is the ‘little matter’ of the CO2 generated making the cement for the hundreds of tons of concrete in the base of each turbine. That concrete will be around for hundreds of years.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. spock2009 says:

    Potentially good article weakened by not providing the name of the author and specific references for points stated. If it is an opinion article, then it should be labeled as such.
    It’s not my intention to be difficult or contrary but credibility is everything in discussions of this type.
    FWIW, Dale Mullen


  4. rodadams2013 says:

    My theory is that the market plan forunreliables (branded as “renewables”) was initially developed by people who had strong motives for halting the Atomic Age in its tracks.

    It’s not because they wanted to return to the pastoral, dirty, smelly, and powerless existence of the time when wood, domesticated animals and human slaves were the only form of power available. Instead, it was because they were having too much fun and enjoying the wealth obtainable from involvement in supplying the Hydrocarbon Era. They just didn’t want it to end.

    Climate change and the atmospheric concentration increases of methane and CO2 are real and measurable right now. Their future effects are complicated and uncertain, but it would be folly to assume that they will be mostly beneficial for the majority of world citizens.

    We have a reliable, CO2 and methane-free source of almost unlimited power. That fact scares the bejesus out of people involved in finding, extracting, transporting, financing, refining, and supporting the hydrocarbon economy.


    • Bill Fortune says:

      It’s not so much the “hydrocarbon economy” as it is the Greens and the hundred of thousands of people studying global warming and climate change. For the Greens, wind and solar is something they “understand” (like we all love the warmth of the sun and the wind in our hair). When I propose alternatives they get mad and start the name calling like 10 yr. old kids. For all the impotent people, it’s the $$$$$$$$$$$. It’s too easy to rid people of their $$.

      The only alternative that I see available is the Molten Salt Reactor by Transatomic Power, Cambridge, Massachusetts. I ask that you promote this technology. For a short “op-ed” contact me; indust.consult @rcn. com.


      • rodadams2013 says:


        The “Greens” might not be quite as idealistic as you might imagine. I’ve found evidence that many of them happily solicit and accept large donations from members of the hydrocarbon establishment.

        When one considers the hundreds of billions in annual sales that can accrue to companies like Exxon, Chevron, Aramaco, Gazprom, Eni, Total, and Shell, the amount of money associated with Green NGOs looks quite puny. So does their political influence, especially in countries that might receive as much as 50% — or even more — of their annual income from selling oil, natural gas or coal.

        Though I like the WAMSR by TransAtomic, it is only one of dozens of advanced reactor designs with real potential for market penetration.


  5. Curt Widlund says:

    Effects of infrasound on people : The Sonic Weapon of Vladimir Gavreau
    Read more at:
    Der unhörbare Lärm von Windkraftanlagen
    The Misuse of Infrasound: Industry, military, and now the cops
    What if there was a weapon whose effects you couldn’t see or hear, but could kill you from a distance of hundreds of metres?
    Fergus Day assesses the disturbing potential of infrasound.
    Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt Bayerisches Landesamt für
    Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit UmweltWissen – Klima und Energie

    Click to access uw_117_windkraftanlagen_infraschall_gesundheit.pdf

    Mind Control und psychophysische Waffen: Folter in Deutschland!
    Nicht-tödliche Waffen? – Ein Interview mit einem kritischen Experten
    A Short History of Sound Weapons Pt2: Infrasound January 14, 2008

    Sonic weapon images
    Vindkraft infraljud images
    Neue Waffe: Infraschall?
    Organ music ‘instils religious feelings’
    Front Public Health. 2015; 3: 31.
    Deadly Vibrations A Brief History of Sonic Warfare
    Wind Farms, Infrasound And The Brain By Neuroskeptic | July 16, 2015 10:33 am
    Acoustic weapons:
    The Real Science On Wind Farms, Noise, Infrasound And Health
    June 11, 2015 | by Con Doolan:

    Witnesses from Ontario Canada

    UN Tortyrlag By Hans Danelius Former Justice of the Supreme Court of Sweden
    I. The Torture Convention
    The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “Torture Convention”) was adopted by the
    General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984 (resolution 39/46). The Convention entered into force on 26 June 1987 after it had
    been ratified by 20 States.


  6. Curt Widlund says:

    Each acres forrest is taking up 15 -20 ton of CO2/acres and year.


  7. 4TimesAYear says:

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog and commented:
    Environmentalists should be outraged about these things.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Niebiski says:

    Its hard to know where to start, but this article is pretty silly.
    First of all, average lifespan of a wind turbine is more like 20 – 25 years.
    All forms of energy production require steel and raw materials for production, so it has to be factored into calculations on any energy source.

    Backup energy storage doesn’t need to be coal or any fossil fuel based system, there are already plenty of options that work already in use, e.g. hydro electric!. Chemical batteries are also becoming an option for grid storage (Tesla is already doing this) and it will only get better as time goes by.

    Wind turbines do kill something like 300k birds per year, but cats kill about 3 billion, so its an issue to be mitigated, not an environmental disaster.

    Wind energy is only part of a well balanced renewable energy system that probably includes lots of other parts, solar, hydro, tidal, who knows what in the future.

    Anyway… pretty much the article is rubbish.


    • Climatism says:

      The main point is “novelty energy” or “unreliables” are not “green” nor “renewable” in the slightest.
      They are mere symbolic icons to the folly of green climate madness. They are wholly weather dependent thus rely on “reliable” fossil fuel backup 24/7/365.
      In fact:
      Adding More Solar And Wind Power ‘Doubles’ CO2 Emissions

      As well, “Chemical” and toxic batteries as a backup source is an even more fanciful option and requires even more “mining” which greenies are meant to hate.

      Lastly, If greens love nature, why aren’t they more concerned about carpeting pristine landscapes, destroying people’s livelihoods and flora and fauna with industrial wind turbines?

      Duane J. Hyland nails this monumental hypocrisy…

      “Environmentalists” would, in times past, raise the alarm at obstructions being built by the thousands across the land, but today the “Socio-Enviro-Emotionalists” salivate at the site of these rising monsters, believing they are “saving the planet.”


    • DC Cowboy says:

      To your first point, a 2012 study of 3,000 wind turbines in the UK showed that they are not lasting 20-25 years, they are lasting anywhere from 12-15 We have to use what empirical data says about wind turbine lifetime rather than manufacturer estimates (which is where the 20-25 year figure comes from).

      As to your second. Hydro-electric is only an option in a very small % of the planet. You can’t just throw up a hydroelectric plant anywhere you want. In any case, if you could, why on earth would you use it for ‘backup power’ when you could use it as the primary power source and wouldn’t need the wind turbines at all? Hydro-electric is ‘greener’ than wind turbines will ever be and they last significantly longer than wind turbines. Chemical batteries are not power generators so the power stored in them has to come from somewhere. Additionally, they can only replace the power needed for very short periods of time (South Australia’s huge Tesla storage can supply power for 45 minutes) and they are extremely expensive AND they don’t have all the great a lifespan either. Plus they are made from metals that are in limited supply using mining techniques like child slave labor for cobalt. can you provide a source for your assertion that chemical batteries ‘will only get better as time goes by’?


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 )

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.