How Many Of Those Wind Turbines Are Actually Turning? | PA Pundits – International

By Anton Lang ~


I was recently asked if there was a way I could tell how many turbines were rotating at a wind plant, other than actually driving by one of these Industrial plants and and actually counting them.

This is a tricky one to answer correctly, and you’ll soon see why.

I sometimes do it myself, work out how many of those turbines are actually working, and you can tell by looking at the actual turbine itself, because the huge blades out front of the turbine are rotating, but other than that, is there another way?

In one word ….. yes, and I can show you how that is done. However, it is so complex that the average person would not even begin to know how to do it, and from that, you can now see how easy it is for the pro green lobby wind supporters to ‘get away with’ saying what they say about wind power being so good, because no one can really disprove what they say without an awful lot of work.

So, here’s how something like that could be done. You would need to know which wind plant to look at, and here in Australia, there are currently 76 separate wind plants.

Have you got that? Seventy six separate wind plants to look at, and that’s just here in Australia, because in other Countries, that number of wind plants could be well up over hundreds or more of them, so, again, see the scale of a task like this.

First, knowing the name of the wind plant you want to look at, you would need to know how many turbines that plant actually has. So here, you would need to go to the plant’s website and find out the number of turbines, but that’s not all. You would also need to know what type of turbine, and the power output in MegaWatts, and as well as that, the total Nameplate for the plant in question. That way, knowing that, and then finding the total output of the plant for a point in time, then you could work out the number of turbines which are working at that point in time. Now perhaps the complexity of the task is sinking in. I can do this, because I know exactly those things to look for, and where to go to find them, and I’m not writing this to show how good I am, but that a task like this is almost impossible to work out for the average person, and also how that wind supporters lobby can say whatever they want to, because no one (and probably even them) knows where to find that information.

Macarthur Wind Plant In Victoria Australia

So, then, let’s look at an example then. And here, we’ll use the Macarthur wind plant in Victoria. (shown in the image at right, and if you click on the image , it will open at a new window, and at a larger size, so you can better see the detail) This plant is now the third largest wind plant in Australia, but for close on seven years it was the largest. Here’s the link to that plant, and here for the sake of ease, I’m using the Wikipedia site, which in fact is now hopelessly out of date, but it does have the required information. The information we need is under the map for the site location at the right of screen. It says there that the total Nameplate for this plant is 420MW, that each turbine is of 3MW, hence there are 140 individual turbines.

Okay, so now we have that information. All we need now is to find a site which details the output of that wind plant, and on a time scale that can be used for a reasonable accuracy.

Here’s the link to the website where I get all my data from. Once you are there, that image you see is the overall general page for the daily power data from every power plant in the Country, and it’s actually shown in real time, as it is updated every five minutes from the AEMO data. (the Australian electrical power generation Regulatory Site) The top image is a map of Australia showing ALL the power plants of every type, and if you scroll down a little, you’ll see the graph for ALL power generation, from every source in the Country. From that, you need to isolate out just the Wind plant data. So, look down the right hand side of the page and you’ll see a heading titled ‘About the Australian Electricity Grid’. In the text, you’ll see the highlighted links to all the sources, so you need to look at the one link for ….. wind power. (and here, rather than do all of that, here’s the link to that wind power page.)

This shows the default for the current data for the actual time you just clicked onto the site, and as I mentioned above, this is also updated every five minutes.

So here, at the top right of that page, in the black heading, you see the day and the time. Click on that and when the calendar comes up for this Month, change the date to the day in question that you wish to view, and here the date I have used as an example is Wednesday 22 June 2022, so click on that date. Here, rather than go through all the steps above, this is that link to that day.

When that page opens, you see the default graph there for all 76 wind plants in Australia, and here the default shows the Capacity Factor (%) for each wind plant, and each one is shown in a different colour. So, to now get the power output, see at the top right of that graph it has % and MW. Well here, now click on MW, and a black line appears showing the total power output across the day for all 76 wind plants.

Under the graph is the list of each of those 76 wind plants, all coded with their AEMO code. Each of those 76 plants has the box alongside it ticked, so each plant’s total is added to the overall total, that black line on the graph.

At the bottom of the coded list is listed the five States in the AEMO coverage area. Above that you see at the end of the codes, the boxes for sub total and total.

So, here, as we want just the information for Macarthur wind, so, now, untick the boxes for every state and also untick the box for Total ….. and now you should have a blank graph.

Okay, now tick just the box for Macarthur wind, coded as MACARTH1. What you now see on the graph is the total output across the day for the Macarthur wind plant. The data is listed for time across the page and you can see that as you hover your mouse across the page, anywhere at all. Do it slowly, and you can see that the data is updated every five minutes, and the data is shown in real time, as the page is updated every five minutes.

Pick a point in time across the day, and here, I’ll make it easy and pick the low point for the day shown here as 18:00, so that’s 6PM. Here is the link to that individual point in time graph, and I have shown the image of that at right, and if you click on the image, it will open on a new page and at a larger size, so you can see the detail more easily, and as you can see in the codes below the graph, the only indicated plant is that for Macarthur Wind.

The total here is 19MW. So in the five minutes leading up to 6PM, Macarthur wind had six of its 140 towers with the blades actually turning and generating power. SIX OF THEM.

Okay, now why I detailed every step here is to show you how the exercise CAN actually be done ….. but to show you just how difficult, nigh on impossible, that task actually is.

There are 76 individual wind plants that you can check, and there are 288 individual time points across the day, and also, the information dates back to the very day that the wind plant came on line, so in the case of Macarthur Wind, all the way back to its opening in January of 2013, although the data at this site only goes back to March of 2014, so there are a little more than 3000 days, so more than 864,000 individual time points that could feasibly be checked, just for Macarthur Wind alone just the one wind plant of 76 individual wind plants.

The task would be monumental.

Also, as a generalisation here, and one I have occasionally used in my daily wind generation Posts, you could do a similar task for the overall representation, and here, note I used the word ‘generalisation’. For that same day, go back to the total for very wind plant in the Country. The overall total Nameplate is is now 9854MW, and while the total number of turbines all up would be difficult to find out, and also a long task to find out, the generalised number might be roughly calculated. The current average for all turbines is (around) 3MW, so that means there are around 3280 individual turbines across Australia. So, for this same day, only now using the total power, then at the low point for the day, just before 6PM, then the total output is 1270MW, and at a 3MW average, then at that low point in time for this day, there were only 420 of those towers which had their blades turning over and generating power, but again, that’s just a generalisation. 420 turbines out of a total of 3280 turbines.

And therein lies the sneakiness behind those green lobby wind supporters. They KNOW that no one will ever go and check ….. even if they knew how to go and check in the first place.

I didn’t do all of this to show I know everything, but just to show you how complex something like this really is, so I hope this helps you here. Sometimes, a seemingly simple question can become so involved.


A further observation was also made that if so many turbines were not in operation, then how many of those might be because they have a fault that cannot be repaired within a short time.

Wind Turbine Nacelle. Image courtesy of Siemens.

We keep hearing that wind is now the cheapest form of power generation, and it’s just so much BS really. The actual maintenance costs on wind plant turbines is horrendous, something you will also never hear about. At a coal fired Unit, you have ONE unit at ground level to service, so walk in, do the work, and walk out. With a wind plant it’s anything up to (and more than) a hundred Units, all of them at skyscraper height, some of them, at 120 metres above the ground, (and the official height of a skyscraper, the tallest building in any city being just 100 metres) and then the tradesman doing the work is working in a confined space. The image at right shows the breakdown of a typical Wind turbine inside the nacelle on top of the huge tower, and if you click on the image it will open at a new window and at an increased size, so you can better see the detail. There are stairs inside that huge tower, but imagine walking up thousands of stairs inside a very confined space to work on the generator inside that nacelle at the top of that tall tower, again in a very very confined space inside the nacelle, and to carry all your equipment and spares needed as well. These days, nearly every wind plant has to hire a helicopter to insert the workers from the top, onto a platform on top of the nacelle. The costs of maintenance are in fact so horrendous, that it’s sometimes cheaper to leave the Unit isolated and turned off than it is to service it. Again, that’s something you’ll NEVER know, and they wouldn’t tell you anyway even if requested. And they are more fragile than coal fired Units as well.

All of that adds to the reason why the Capacity Factor is so low for wind generation, and has just not improved over the years. That’s one of the reasons I have been keeping that data I keep on that daily basis, to actually show that. We are also being told that the newer turbines are so much more reliable and that in time, that Capacity Factor will increase as more and more new ones are added to the grid, and again, that’s just not true, as my data bears out. Over the four years I have been keeping this data on that daily basis now, the CF has stayed virtually the same, at that figure of 30%. In that time, the total Nameplate for wind generation has almost doubled (from 5301MW to what is now 9854MW) with so many new Plants added to the grid, and that CF is still at that 30% figure it was when I first started doing it. I have used that 30% here for Australia for more than twelve years now, and one of the reasons I started to keep this data was that I was told it was improving year on year, and that the 30% figure was a ….. GROSS understatement. It’s actually totally accurate.

Anton Lang uses the screen name of TonyfromOz, and he writes at this site, PA Pundits International on topics related to electrical power generation, from all sources, concentrating mainly on Renewable Power, and how the two most favoured methods of renewable power generation, Wind Power and all versions of Solar Power, fail comprehensively to deliver levels of power required to replace traditional power generation. His Bio is at this link.


Russia’s laser weapon claim derided as propaganda – BBC News

…Yury Borisov, the deputy prime minister in charge of military development, told Russian TV that a laser prototype called Zadira was
being deployed in Ukraine and had burned up a Ukrainian drone within
five seconds at a distance of 5km (three miles).

Pentagon Confirms UFOs are Real – Nwo Report

Why the recent flip?

Posted BY: Paul Joseph Watson

Why did the establishment and the legacy media flip from treating the entire UFO subject with scorn and ridicule to treating it with the utmost seriousness?

TRENDING: ‘Good Morning America’ Admits Covid Booster Shots Can Cause AIDS

Please share this video!

US Congress to question Pentagon on UFOs — RT World News

The US House Intelligence Committee
has scheduled a hearing to follow up on some 143 UFO sightings reported
between 2004 and 2021, Representative André Carson (D-Indiana) revealed
on Tuesday. The hearing, scheduled for next Tuesday, will be held by the
Intelligence Committee’s subcommittee on counterterrorism,
counterintelligence, and counterproliferation, which Carson chairs.

this is an area of high public interest, any undue secrecy can serve as
an obstacle to solving the mystery, or it could prevent us from finding
solutions to potential vulnerabilities,” Carson told the New York Times. “This
hearing is about examining steps that the Pentagon can take to reduce
the stigma surrounding reporting by military pilots, and by civilian

Among those testifying before the subcommittee are
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security Ronald Moultrie
and Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Scott Bray. Both have been
involved with further investigating the 143 sightings detailed in a
report released last year by the Pentagon’s Unidentified Aerial
Phenomenon Task Force, an office that has since been replaced by the
Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group. The
new division, led by Moultrie, is supposed to “detect, identify and
attribute objects of interest in Special Use Airspace and to assess and
mitigate any associated threats to safety of flight and national

discussion of UFOs has increased since 2017, when it was revealed the
Pentagon had a project known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat
Identification Program (AATIP) tasked with identifying (or at least
trying to identify) such aircraft. Last year’s report released to
Congress, while largely classified, hinted that the Pentagon was
involved in analyzing the “advanced technology” seemingly displayed by UFOs, which it has divided into multiple categories, admitting in one partially-redacted section that “UAP [unexplained aerial phenomena] Probably Lack a Single Explanation.”

Spurring a renewal of public interest in the phenomena were three
videos released shortly after the AATIP report – and officially
confirmed by the Pentagon in 2020 – that showed recordings of
unidentified aircraft performing bizarre maneuvers not believed to be
possible with known human technology.

The last public hearings on
UFOs concluded in 1970, when the Air Force closed its public
investigation into the phenomenon, called Project Blue Book. Despite
numerous reports from pilots both military and civilian, the Air Force
concluded that no UFO had ever been a threat to national security, that
the objects thus far unexplained did not display advanced technology
beyond the knowledge of the day, and that there was no evidence the
aircraft in question was extraterrestrial. UFO enthusiasts have cried
foul play ever since.

All life ‘ingredients’ found on space rocks — RT World News

1 May, 2022 17:29

All life ‘ingredients’ found on space rocks

The key ‘building blocks’ of DNA and RNA have been discovered on asteroids, scientists confirm
All life ‘ingredients’ found on space rocks
hypothesis suggesting that the seeds of life could have been literally
brought to Earth from space has received a boost from a study published
earlier this week that showed that all five key “ingredients”
needed to form DNA can be found on asteroids. A group of scientists has
discovered the final two pieces of the DNA puzzle that had previously
not been observed in any meteorite samples, according to a paper published this week in the peer-reviewed Nature Communications journal.

and RNA, which form the genetic basis of all known living beings on
Earth, consist of five key informational components called nucleobases.
Until now, scientists had been able to find three out of the five in
various meteorite samples, showing that they could have been brought to
Earth from space.

Now, a team led by Associate Professor Yasuhiro Oba of Hokkaido
University in Japan, managed to identify the remaining two components
that had eluded researchers. The team, which consists of scientists from
the US and Japan, has studied three carbonaceous meteorites that fell
in Australia, the US and Canada.

The newly discovered nucleobases –
cytosine and thymine – may have previously escaped scientists’
attention due to their particularly delicate structure, meaning they
could have been degraded due to the nature of previous experiments, the
US space agency NASA, which also contributed to the research, suggested.

experiments involved placing meteorite samples into hot liquids and
analyzing the resulting solution. However, Oda’s team used another
method that “is more like cold brew than hot tea and is able to pull out more delicate compounds,” said Jason Dworkin, a co-author of the paper at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

now have evidence that the complete set of nucleobases used in life
today could have been available on Earth when life emerged,” Danny Glavin, another researcher at the Goddard center, has said.

Modern evolutionary biology suggests that chemical elements combined
to eventually form different, competing sequences of nucleic acid, a
precursor to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA).
However, the exact mechanism by which our planet was seeded with the
original building blocks needed for life to emerge is still unclear.

does the discovery mean that life was necessarily brought to Earth from
space. Another hypothesis suggests that life came about in a “prebiotic soup” on the planet’s surface during the Earth’s “infancy.”

the production efficiency of nucleobases on the Earth was much higher
than the inputs from space… contributions to the emergence of genetic
function and/or life itself from such extraterrestrial nucleobases could
not be large,” Oba, the leading researcher behind the study, has said.

are not living organisms themselves, but rather organic chemical
compounds seen as ‘precursors’ to life in the form of DNA. Any of these
compounds can emerge as the result of chemical reactions taking place on
asteroids travelling through space, as the latest study has shown.

However, the discovery does give scientists a broader understanding of the complex chemical processes happening in the universe.

“This is adding more and more pieces; meteorites have been found to have sugars and bases now,” Dworkin has said. “It’s exciting to see progress in the making of the fundamental molecules of biology from space,” he has added.

now the scientists also face some new questions about the life
‘precursors’. The nucleobases, which are also known as ‘purines and
pyrimidines’, depending on their structure, appear to be surprisingly
uniform despite the numerous places of their origin.

“I wonder
why purines and pyrimidines are exceptional in that they do not show
structural diversity in carbonaceous meteorites unlike other classes of
organic compounds such as amino acids and hydrocarbons,” Oba has said.

purines and pyrimidines can be synthesized in extraterrestrial
environments, as has been demonstrated by our own study, one would
expect to find a wide diversity of these organic molecules in
meteorites,” he added.

Russians who dug trenches in the Red Forest will face radiation sickness – Energoatom

Russians who dug trenches in the Red Forest will face radiation sickness - Energoatom

Russians who dug trenches in the Red Forest will face radiation sickness – Energoatom

Chief of Ukraine’s Energoatom Petro Kotin
visited one of the areas in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone, where the
Russian occupiers had been digging trenches. The official says all
Russian soldiers, who have already retreated from the area, are now
facing radiation sickness.
That’s according to the Ukrainian Pravda citing the nuclear operator’s press service, Ukrinform reports.

The report says abnormally high levels of radiation background were
recorded at the sites where the occupiers had been digging to strengthen
their positions.

“The rate of external radiation (gamma background) in the researched
areas stood at 3.2-4 μSv/h (microsieverts per hour), which is 10-15
times above the norm.

Read also: Russian troops kick up clouds of radioactive dust near Chornobyl NPP

One of the indicators measuring the internal radiation received by
the occupiers from the soil surface (Beta contamination) in the
researched areas was 90 Sr, which is 160 times above the norm.

Another factor of internal radiation is Alpha contamination, which is
formed due to the fragments of nuclear fuel and graphite from the
reactor scattered in this part of the so-called “Red Forest.” These
fragments are now 40-80 cm below the surface, but the occupiers dug

It is reported that when getting into a human body, this type of
radiation is tens and hundreds of times more powerful than gamma and
beta rays.

Therefore all the occupiers, who were based in the Red Forest and
were digging trenches there for almost 30 days, will face radiation
sickness of varying severity.