GAO report: 'wind turbines can reduce the performance of radar systems used for defense and maritime navigation and safety in several ways…'

Comment

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on April 19, 2025 at 1:16am

Here is the One Thing Trump Needs to Do That Changes EVERYTHING: Prove the 2020 Election was Stolen
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/04/here_is_the_one_th...

Comment by Willem Post on April 15, 2025 at 10:38am

The IPCC, etc., has dubbed CO2 as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”

The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.

Governments proclaimed, Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.

.

MAGA and burn, baby, burn, may lead to a slightly greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere, which is an absolutely essential gas/ingredient for creating: 1) increased green flora to support abundant fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to feed 8 billion people. What is not to like?

.

The slogan Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people.

.

But, at about 30% annual W/S on the grid, various costs increase exponentially.

The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent W/S output, often too-little and often too-much output, creates operational difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and increasingly more costly/kWh to counteract, as proven by the UK and California for the past 5 years, and Germany for the past 10 years.

.

All three have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDPs, the highest electricity prices/kWh, and stagnant real wages for almost all people, while further enriching the elites who live in the poshest places.

.

Their angry, over-taxed, over-regulated native populations are further burdened by the elites bringing in tens of millions of uninvited, unvetted, poor, uneducated, inexperienced folks from all over; a chaotic, culture-clashing burden the native populations never voted for.

.

All that W/S money uglified the countryside, killed fisheries, tourism, viewsheds, etc.

But the climate is not any different than 30 years ago, even though, atmosphere CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 420 ppm in 2025, 50% in 175 years.

During that time, world surface temps increased by about 1.5 C, only about 0.5 C can be attributed to CO2, with the rest from:

1) Long-term cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age, 

2) Earth surface changes, due to increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.

3) Urban heat islands, such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus. Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands

.

BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C.

The 1979-to-present temp measurements (46 years) cover most of the earth surface and are more accurate, +/- 0.25 C, due to NASA satellites.

Any graphs should show these accuracy bands.

The wiggles in below image are due to plants rotting late in the year, emitting CO2, plants growing early in the year, consuming CO2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about.html

Comment by Willem Post on April 15, 2025 at 10:36am

EPA, NOAA, BOEM, etc., with their glossy, dubious, hastily concocted, environmental approvals/licenses, are traitorous organizations undermining the NORAD defense of the US, by rooting for/approving, super-expensive, $/MW, environmentally harmful, highly subsidized, offshore windmill systems, that produce super-expensive, weather-dependent, variable, grid-disturbing, electricity, c/kWh, that further enriches the tax shelters of the moneyed elites, at the expense of all others, and would make the US even less competitive on world markets, which helps trade surpluses of Europe, China, etc.

.

HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-s...

By Willem Post

.

What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the other, traditional generators, as they inefficiently counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...

.

W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDPs
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.

UK and Germany have hit the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system

.

Base-load nuclear, gas and coal plants are the only rational way forward, plus the additional CO2 is very beneficial for additional flora and fauna growth and increased crop yields to feed hungry people.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine

.

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:

1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent - State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);

2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;

3) Loan interest deduction

.

Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems

Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind

Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems

.

Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience: 

- Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh

- A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh

- A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh

- Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh

- Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh

- Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh

- Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh

Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth economy is in de-growth mode.

That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.

YOUR tax dollars are building these projects so YOU will have much higher electric bills.

Remove YOUR tax dollars using your vote, and none of these projects would be built, and YOUR electric bills would be lower.

.

NUCLEAR PLANTS TOO EXPENSIVE? 

In France, the turnkey cost of the 1,600 MW Flamanville plant was $13.7 billion, or $8,563/installed MW

Plants built by Russia, China and South Korea are about $5,500/installed MW

Expensive nuclear plant building is strictly a "rules-based" Western thing.

.

Nuclear Plants by Russia

According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW

Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england

Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.

The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.

.

In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $28.75 billion, or about $5,990/kW, 

As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU

.

In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom

.

In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.

Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed

.

In Iran, Rosatom started site preparation for a nuclear power plant at the Bushehr site.

Phase 1: Unit 1 went on line in 2012.

Phase 2: 2 VVER-1000 units, each 1050 Mwe. Construction started March 2017. Units 2 and 3 to be completed in 2024 and 2026.

.

In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station

Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant

.

Russia is the only country with nuclear powered ice breakers.

The biggest ones steadily go through 7 METERS of ice.

.

Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures

. 

Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions

They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years

Nuclear does not need counteracting plants. They can be designed as load-following, as some are in France

.

Wind: Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places

They last about 15 to 20 years in a salt water environment 
They require:

1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365,

2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers,

3) a lot of land and sea area,

4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced

. 

Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.

American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.