Wind Turbines only last 10 – 15 years, NOT 20 – 25 like the Wind liars tell us!!!!

Posted: December 19, 2012 in Uncategorized

Tens of thousands of massive Wind Turbines already planted around the world are facing a pretty limited “life-span” according to a new report from the Renewable Energy Foundation in the U.K.

This isn’t a report from an anti-wind group but the actual Foundation that promotes renewables over in Britain.

This is huge!. Every single investment that is made in the Wind Energy Scam is based on 20 year plus contracts and promise a return on investment in that time period.

Now in the REAL WORLD, these monstrosities will only live a “half-life for investors” and that guarantees a future nightmare about to explode on every Country and Province in the world that has opened their doors to this SCAM!

Who will repair these useless piles of fiberglass and metal?………….who will tear them down?…………………who will pay the monthly cheques to the land owners who sold their homes and lands out to the Wind rabble?

People have been warned for years that this Green Energy Scam was a Scam, the tragedy here is that innocent hard working tax payers will be on the hook to a large group of “grifters” and snake oil salesmen far longer than the actual life span of these “phallic symbols of greed and failure”!

Wear and Tear Hits Wind Farm Output and Economic Lifetime

19 December 2012 REF

The Renewable Energy Foundation [1] today published a new study, The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark,[2] showing that the economic life of onshore wind turbines is between 10 and 15 years, not the 20 to 25 years projected by the wind industry itself, and used for government projections.

The work has been conducted by one of the UK’s leading energy & environmental economists, Professor Gordon Hughes of the University of Edinburgh[3], and has been anonymously peer-reviewed.  This groundbreaking study applies rigorous statistical analysis to years of actual wind farm performance data from wind farms in both the UK and in Denmark.

The results show that after allowing for variations in wind speed and site characteristics the average load factor of wind farms declines substantially as they get older, probably due to wear and tear. By 10 years of age the contribution of an average UK wind farm to meeting electricity demand has declined by a third.

This decline in performance means that it is rarely economic to operate wind farms for more than 12 to 15 years.  After this period they must be replaced with new machines, a finding that has profound consequences for investors and government alike.

Specifically, investors expecting a return on their investment over 20-25 years will be disappointed.  Policymakers expecting wind farms built before 2010 to be contributing towards CO2 targets in 2020 or later must allow for the likelihood that the total investment required to meet these targets will be much larger than previous forecasts have suggested.  As a consequence, the lifetime cost per unit (MWh) of electricity generated by wind power will be considerably higher than official estimates.

Other important findings are:

a. The decline in the performance of Danish offshore wind farms is greater than that of UK onshore wind farms.  This has worrying implications for the very large investment being made by the UK in offshore wind.

b. Analysis of site-­specific performance reveals that the initial load factor of new UK onshore wind farms, normalized for wind availability and size, declined significantly from 2000 to 2011, especially in Scotland.  It seems that progressively worse sites are being developed.

c. Larger wind farms have a systematically worse performance than smaller ones.  Since the average size of wind farms has increased, this has reinforced the deterioration in the performance of new wind farms.

The author, Professor Hughes, said: “The study has three important implications for policy towards wind generation in the UK:

1. Some investors will be aware of the decline in performance, but nevertheless continue to invest, suggesting that the subsidies are so generous as to compensate for the fall in output. Therefore this is probably room for further subsidy reductions to cut cost to the consumer.



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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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