Although I do not expect the country to reach net zero for the reasons stated in previous posts, we will nevertheless spend a great deal of money in trying to get there. In doing so we will miss out on a number of other important measures we could have done instead which would have made a big difference to the lives of many of us. Below is a link to an interesting debate in the House of Lords which looked at the heat pump policy and its cost implications.
"My Lords, the Minister kindly referred to the social housing decarbonisation fund, but there are something like 2.7 million homes owned by the social housing sector, with a projected cost of £36 billion to decarbonise them. Does he recognise that the fund is far too small to deliver that, and if so, what extra support will be made available to housing associations for them to achieve this for their poorer tenants?"
Even that estimate of £36 billion seems extremely low as it only works out at £13,300 per house, whereas other estimates Are much higher at around £25,000 per house. But look at the huge sum to be spent on heat pumps and other measures to achieve net zero and then think about what this means for the future housing provision for those who need it. This vast sum will not be spent on building new homes. Instead it will all go to save a tiny bit of CO2 emissions with nothing to show for it.
Then there are the hours-long pyrotechnic displays when these things self-immolate; exploding into balls of flame and toxic smoke and sending a shower of molten metal and over 1,000 litres of flaming gear oil, hydraulic fluid (see our post here) and burning plastic composites earthwards. By the way, wind turbine fires are ten times more common than the wind industry and its parasites claim (see our post here and check out this website: http://turbinesonfire.org).
Once again gravity gets the better hand. This time the action takes place in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta province, with a turbine that let it all hang out (make sure to check out the video in the piece below).
100-ton wind turbine blades fall to pieces in Vietnam
VN Express
An Minh
3 March 2024
Blades of a wind turbine totaling 100 tons fell off 140 meters and broke into pieces in the Mekong Delta province of Bac Lieu on Friday.
Residents of Hoa Binh District heard a loud noise at around 5 p.m. Friday and saw wing blades at Hoa Binh Wind Power No. 5 fell to the ground. No person was injured.
Authorities of the district were seen on site Saturday morning to examine the accident.
The blades, each of which is 80 meters long and three meters wide, broke into many pieces in an area of 50 square meters.
The project was being developed by Hacom Bac Lieu Energy.
The blades also damaged a storage house of a local fish farm. There were three people in the house when the blades dropped but no one was hurt, said Nguyen Van Kien, owner of the farm.
The turbines in the project have been suspended after the incident.
The rotor, which weighs dozens of tons, created a hole of five meters deep.
The incident also broke the project’s internal power line.
Security guards were deployed to keep local residents from entering the area.
The project has a price tag of VND3.7 trillion (US$150 million) with a capacity of up to 80 megawatts.
It is built on an area of 30 hectares with 26 turbines that can generate 280 million kilowatt-hours a year.
This is the largest onshore wind power plant near the sea in the Mekong Delta region.
Bac Lieu Province has 10 wind power plants, eight of them operational. VN Express
“Respectfully, the future of the Town of Ocean City cannot be bought [by offshore wind interests] and we intend to continue to do what is necessary to protect the interests of our residents, property owners and future generations.” – Mayor Rick Meehan, Ocean City, Maryland
The $2 million bribe was turned down–flatly, by the Mayor of Ocean City, Rick Meeham. This “opportunity” spread out over 20 years came with this request from US Wind: “local government officials… [refraining] from making any negative comments or objections.”
In December 2023, I received an email from Jeff Grybowski, Chief Executive Officer for US Wind, offering Ocean City the same opportunity that has been extended to the Delaware Beach Towns,” [Ocean City Mayor] Meehan said. “My response was, ‘Respectfully the future of the Town of Ocean City cannot be bought and we intend to continue to do what is necessary to protect the interests of our residents, property owners and future generations.’” …
The story continued:
Meehan said he found the idea “unconscionable.” ….
That leaves US Wind as the only company currently developing a wind project offshore Ocean City, and the town’s only opponent in its “battle of the proposed construction of wind turbines off our coast,” according to Ocean City’s official website. “As of January 2024, The Town of Ocean City does not support any turbines built off our coast,” a release from the town said. “As of January 2024, US Wind is the only company with proposed plans to build turbines off the coast of Ocean City.”
Ever the crony, US Wind tried to paint a happy face on the situation.
Nancy Sopko, US Wind’s senior director of external affairs, said in an email that while Ocean City chose not to discuss a community benefit agreement, the company wants to continue to work with the city as “good neighbors.” … “As a member of this community, we believe it’s important to do what we can to help it thrive,” Sopko said. However, she added, “Ocean City’s position on community benefits has no impact on our project plans.”
Final Comment
Nancy Sopko is quoted at the end of the story: “We’re very confident that we will build Maryland’s first offshore wind farm and deliver clean energy to the people of Delmarva for years to come.”
Nope. Real environmentalists are standing up, knowing also that the electricity rate increases from offshore wind will be substantial, even after U.S. taxpayers get soaked via the U.S. Department of Energy grants and the Production Tax Credit.
A right-of-center pundit is appealing a February ruling that found him liable for defaming a prominent climate scientist, and legal experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation that he may have a good chance at a successful appeal.
A Washington, D.C., jury concluded that Mark Steyn — a right-of-center political pundit who referenced a blog post comparing climate scientist Michael Mann to serial pedophile Jerry Sandusky for the former’s purported data manipulation in his signature 1998 “hockey stick” climate model — liable for defaming Mann. Steyn is appealing the court’s decision that he must pay Mann $1 million in punitive damages on top of $1 in compensatory damages, and legal experts told the DCNF that his case may be strong enough to win on appeal.
“Michael Mann’s counsel did something you’re not supposed to do. He invited the jury to send a message that these attacks on scientists have to stop and the jury, being a D.C. jury, decided they were going to send that message. Now, that’s explicitly forbidden, both in the District of Columbia and in the United States at large,” Steyn told the DCNF. “You’re supposed to be trying ‘Fred Smith.’ He’s the guy in the dock. You’re not sending a message to millions of other potential ‘Fred Smiths’ out there. But that’s what they did.” (RELATED: Mark Steyn’s Case Against Climategate Scientist Is Taking So Long A Key Witness Died)
Beyond Steyn’s contention that Mann’s counsel “invited the jury to send a message” to critics of consensus positions on hot-button issues like climate change, legal experts told the DCNF that the ratio of compensatory and punitive damages could open the door for a favorable outcome for Steyn’s appeal.
“It appears to me that Steyn has strong arguments that the punitive damages awarded are excessive under current law, particularly under Supreme Court decisions invalidating exorbitant punitive damage awards that are disproportionate to the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff,” Jonathan Adler, the director of Case Western Reserve University School of Law’s environmental law center, told the DCNF. “By this standard, a one-million-to-one ratio between punitive and compensatory damages would appear to be quite problematic.”
“That said, there are some complicating factors. On the one hand, punitive damages will always appear disproportionate in which compensatory damages are nominal. On the other hand, the arguments against disproportionate punitive damages would seem to be augmented by the First Amendment concerns,” Adler continued. “If, as the jury concluded, Mann suffered no measurable harm from what Steyn wrote, the primary function of the punitive damage award is to discourage potentially inflammatory commentary about matters of public concern, and that raises serious First Amendment problems.”
Anthony Fargo, the director of the Center for International Media Law and Policy Studies at Indiana University, agreed with Adler’s assessment of the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.
“The appellate court is likely to look at this thing that jumps out at me here is the punitive damage award. I think an appellate court would be reluctant to second guess the jury as far as its findings of fact,” Fargo told the DCNF. “What they will probably raise an eyebrow at is the disproportionate amount of the punitive damage award as compared to the compensatory damage award.” (RELATED: Climate Activists Want Michael Moore’s Doc Panning Green Energy Banned, Say It’s Chock Full Of Misinformation)
Usually one hope to make money from a book. Steyn’s probably cost him a million dollars: https://t.co/ZQMIl774zx
The “hockey stick” model was the result of combining several climate proxies into one model, purportedly demonstrating that global temperatures have increased drastically in the past several decades compared to the preceding centuries. Critics, including Steyn and Rand Simberg, have gone after the “hockey stick” model for many years, contending that it should not be considered credible because of its purported flaws.
“The fact that a verdict was rendered against [Steyn] when you had a statistics expert like Abraham Wyner of the University of Pennsylvania testifying that Mann engaged in ‘improper manipulation’ of data that made his signature climate model ‘misleading’ demonstrates that the jury ignored the legal principle that the truth is a defense to any defamation claim,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation, told the DCNF. “From a legal standpoint, Steyn should have the ability to appeal on the basis that the jury ignored his defense that his criticisms that Mann had manipulated data were the truth, and therefore the jury committed a grievous legal error when it found against him.”
National Review’s editors wrote Wednesday that the outlet — which Mann also sued before a court order led to the outlet being dropped from the suit — is looking to “recover more than a million of the dollars that we have lost defending [its] unalienable right to free speech” from Mann. Before National Review was dropped from the suit, Mann wrote in emails that the outlet is a “filthy organization” and a “threat to our children,” according to the outlet.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Iowa Climate Science Education 