“[Hannah] Ritchie ends with suggestions for better results for wind’s avian mortality problem, including ‘Turn off wind turbines at very low speeds when bats are around … Don’t put wind farms in high-risk areas for birds and bats … Paint the turbines Black … Play alert noises to bats and birds to deter them.’ But … these things limit wind siting, increase costs, and/or annoy local neighbors.”

A social media post by Hannah Ritchie (sustainability researcher, University of Oxford) on industrial wind power is worth revisiting. She works within the climate alarm/forced energy transformation narrative (“Bird species are under threat from climate change”) but considers the question:

It would be worrying, then, if a move to low-carbon energy increased pressures on bird populations. That’s a common concern as countries move to wind power.

The media bias in favor of industrial wind turbines is a sight to behold. Simple reporting of the facts, from costs to environmental tradeoffs, could inform the public and voters to quite possibly eliminate the government gravy train that disadvantages virtually all of us. That is, everyone except for wind developers and other constituencies of the Climate Industrial Complex.

It is uncommon to see a break in the narrative of “the energy transition.” This was recently done at E&E News’s Energywire, “‘Wake effect’ could drain 38% of offshore wind power, study says“. This piece by Heather Richards (May 5, 2024) is worth revisiting at length. Key quotations follow:

The findings from national lab and university researchers upend assumptions about how turbines interact with each other.

Wind turbines off the East Coast might significantly drain energy from each other, lowering the power output of an offshore farm by up to 38 percent, according to a new study that challenges early assumptions about the nascent industry’s electricity contribution.

Ed. Note: This post excerpts energy and climate material from the Media Balance Newsletter, a free fortnightly published by physicist John Droz Jr., founder of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions. The complete Newsletter for this post can be found here.

Greed Energy Economics:
*** Why ‘Cheap’ Wind & Solar Power Claims Never Stack Up
*** Wind Subsidies are Rising, but wind power production isn’t rising with them

Unreliables (General):
*** Two New Studies Shed Light On Biden’s Green Energy Money Pit
*** The Green Energy Wall Can’t Arrive Quickly Enough

Wind Energy — Offshore:
*** Study: How Offshore Wind Drives Up Global Carbon Emissions
Offshore wind cumulative impact issue analysis
Short video: Save the Whales, Stop Turbines
Save the Whales: Kill Offshore Wind

Wind Energy — Other:
*** Taking the Wind Out of Climate Change (referencing 60± studies)

Solar Energy:
*** UK Government warns against solar projects on farmland

Nuclear Energy:
*** New York policymakers thaw on nuclear energy
*** Nuclear power takes off: meeting the growth in global electricity demand (Part 1)
*** Nuclear power takes off: the ongoing evolution of reactors (Part 2)
Nuclear power takes off: Back to Euratom?…

“A free market in electricity is based on private property rights and voluntary exchange.”

– Michael Giberson, May 19, 2024

It’s a start. It took me a few dozen tries, but the definition has come from a (not-so) free market electricity advocate, Mike Giberson. Maybe Lynne Kiesling, woman of system and “The Queen of Electricity Markets,” will be next.

Fake free marketeers at the Niskanen Center and at R Street Institute are a plague on sound public policy analysis regarding electricity and other climate/energy issues. The sad case of Jerry Taylor of Cato and Niskanen is recounted here and here. But the problem also is with the energy specialists at R Street, including senior fellow Giberson. (See yesterday’s post on Devin Hartman, Giberson’s boss.)

————-

Mike Giberson knows his energy stuff and was/is free market in many areas, except for electricity.…