If yer happened ter read the second edishun of Serf Under_ground Journal yer ‘ll recall me observation that fer 40,000 years of human existence life was literally lived on the littoral. In the western world, the Industrial Revolution was a game changer. Technologies made possible by cheap fossil fuels raised living standards and by the late 19th century famine became a thing of the past.

Now y’all know we’re experiencing a ‘progressive’ counter movement against fossil fuels, a campaign based on Michael Mann’s flawed Hockey Stick Temperature Study, say, we – won’t – go – inter – that. But since some people, fergetting the1960’s  fear of global cooling, are now reacting ter the 1990’s  period of global warming, attributed ter rising levels of CO2, the western world has begun replacing fossil fuel energy with so called renewable energy.

Yer might say we’re turning into ‘obligate power locovores’ as Kim, a denizen of Professor Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc, describes the movement in the ‘Back ter the 12th Century’ thread, 30/06 10.16am, a recent post that’s sparked debate concerning renewable technologies and fossil fuels.

Tony Brown on the same thread, @2.41am, comments on Solar in the UK, the absurdity of  ‘building 50 acre solar farms in a country that gets 1700 hours of sunshine that is much weaker in winter when it is needed.’ Tony asks: ‘So what do we use for grown up power supplies over the next 50 years as our population increases and demand for electricity also?’

And I ask, what about the idea that wind power is ‘good’ fer the climate and fer us?  Well, whether or not CO2 is the perpetrator of out of control climate change  … which seems unlikely, say, where’s the empiric data, hot spot, feedbacks, albedo evidence …  let’s jest take a walk on the wind side, see what’s happening in the wind energy industry.

A Serf’s Take on Wind Technology.

Seems like there’s a lot of enthusiasm from government bureaucrats and environment advocates … out there. Vilma Radvilate of the  ‘European Energy Programme for Recovery,’  the ‘E E P R,’  love those acronyms, believes wind energy projects are an ideal way to stimulate economic growth, improve energy security and at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (1) So let’s examine those claims about wind energy as we accompany a certain old fashioned gentleman on his travels.

In a village in La Mancha lived an old fashioned gentleman who, when he had nothing to do, which was most of the year, passed his time reading books of knight errantry, so that, after a while, he began to lose the use of his reason. Don Quixote, which is what he called himself, now thought it necessary, as well for the increase of his honour as to be of service to the public, to turn knight errant and roam through the world, redressing all manner of grievances …

Picture your typical modern wind farm. Towers more than 200 feet high that support a turbine housing, or nacelle, the size of a bus. (2)  Sweeping the sky, three rotor blades, 100 to150 feet long, … say, listen to that thrumm!.

An Australian Study analyses the engineering in one of these large turbines in windy Esperance, Western Australia, the kind of tower proliferating around the world. Its electric power is generated in the nacelle behind the propeller. The generator can’t be too large though, or it couldn’t be mounted off the ground, so units most commonly in use only generate about 3/4MW power output. The gear box of the unit is designed to hold the turbine at one speed, to produce maximum power and operate in prescribed wind speeds, and to lock down in high winds so the blades won’t be damaged.(3)

So you could say intermittency is a constant problem. In the United Kingdom, BBC weatherman, Paul Hudson, reported in 2011, that in three consecutive winters of intense cold, there was little or no wind to generate electricity. (4) On  December the 21st, 2010, coal and gas generated 45,000 MW of electricity, compared to wind generated electricity of 20 MW.

You could also say insufficiency of supply is a massive problem. Bob Graham, the Chairman of Highlands Against Wind Farms criticized the proposed installation of 400 plus wind turbines on the Thames Estuary. Operating at an estimated capacity of 1.3GW, even with a generous load factor of 30 %, average output would only be

390 MW, enough to provide 5KW electricity to 78,000 homes,  ‘about enough to power an electric kettle and a toaster.’ (5) This estimate could be a best-case scenario. Number Watch, UK, argues that these figures underestimate the case, as for  80% of the time the turbines would produce no power at all. (6)

Globally, wind power’s popularity



down …

In the year 2000, Denmark, wind capital of the world, cancelled three off shore wind farms. In 2002, the Netherlands decommissioned ninety turbines while in 2006, the Spanish Government decided ter put an end to wind subsidies.(7)

Crossing the plains of Montiel, the knight and his squire discovered some thirty or forty windmills that are on that plain, and as soon as Don Quixote had spied them,

 he cried out: ‘ Fortune directs us better than I could imagine. Look yonder, Sancho, here are at least thirty terrible giants whom I intend to encounter, and having deprived them of their lives, we will partake of their spoils, for in knight errantry, these are lawful prize.’

Partaking of spoils, hmmm …so what’s happening in western developed economies?

You could say renewable energy costs are going through the roof while productivity’s





A CIVITAS Think Tank Study in the UK used Government commissioned estimates of the costs of electricity to calculate the efficiency of fossil fuels and renewable  technologies. (8)  The main conclusions drawn from the report are, that excluding carbon costs, coal is the cheapest form of energy generation. When carbon costs are included, near-term, gas became the cheapest option, while medium-term, nuclear energy is cheapest. Although on shore wind looked a relatively attractive proposition in the commissioned report, once other costs are added on, subsidies and  back up generation, on shore wind becomes the second most expensive option. (9) Off shore wind-farms are always inordinately expensive. Another study, by Economics Professor Graham Hughes, calculates that UK and EU policies favouring wind turbines incur additional costs of 120 billion English pounds for turbines and backups. Open cycle gas plants could generate the same amount of electricity for 13 billion. (10)

Cost are up and productivity



down …

 In 2003, in Denmark, windmill capital of the world, the country’s 6,000 turbines provided only 3.3% of its electricity. In 2003, 84% of Western Denmark’s wind energy was exported … at a loss. (11) In Germany, utilities buy renewable energy at up to ten times the cost of conventional power. (12) In the US, the proposed off shore wind-farm at Massachusetts, for the same instillation cost as Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, will deliver only one third of Diablo Canyon’s output, 7 1/2 hours out of 24, compared to nuclear, 24/7/365. (13) In Spain, in 2005, utilities began refusing new wind power connections. (14)

‘What giants?’ asked Sancho Panca.

‘Those whom we see yonder, with their immense extended arms.’ replied Don Quixote. ‘ Some of that detested race have arms that reach two leagues across the land.’ Couching his lance and protecting himself with his shield, Don Quixote rushed with Rozinante’s  utmost speed upon the first windmill he came to, running his lance into the sail. The wind whirled with such force that his lance was broken into shivers and knight and horse hurled away with it and flung a good way into the field.

So are wind farms ‘good’ for the climate? Do they reduce CO 2 emissions? Well you’d have to say there’s a problem with ‘on – again, off – again,’ back – up technology standing in for ‘on – again, off – again,’ wind technology. A recent Dutch Study criticizes the energy models that sold wind power to the Netherlands’ Government because the models neglect factors that increase fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.(15) One such factor is the process of ‘cycling’ or ramping up conventional plants connected to stand in when the wind isn’t blowing, and ramping down when it is. Both processes increase fuel consumption and increase CO2 emissions.(16)  Other studies reveal similar effects from ramping. (17) (18)

Then there’s the factor of extra energy needed to build and install huge steel wind turbines, energy needed for cabling and replacing the systems after 15 years, in the UK, a subsidy regulation. (19) The Dutch Study also analyses the efficiency factor in back up generation. Steam Enhanced Gas Turbines, (CCGT,) which are twice as energy efficient as Open Cycle Gas Turbines, (OCGT.) But because OCGT are better suited to rapid ramping, however, the less efficient technology becomes the preferred option as back up. (20)

So wind technology is not so good for the climate and it’s not so good for the environment either. We know about the noise… there’s more. Wind farms sure take up a lot of land, could be crop land. Off shore wind farms take up lots of space too.

Picture the proposed off shore wind farm in the UK covering over 1002 miles of the Thames Estuary.(21) Then there’s threats ter wild life? A 2002 study in Spain estimated that 11,200 birds of prey, some endangered species, 3,000,000 small birds, and as many bats are killed every year by wind turbines and power lines. (22) And talk about

messy! In Valencia, Spain, (23) operators of the giant wind installations mention the dripping and flinging off of gallons of motor oil, cooling and cleaning fuels…tsk!.

‘Heaven send us better times, ‘cried the knight, ‘there is nothing but plotting and counter mining in the world. I can do more.’  Then raising a fixed eye upon two near by water mills Don Quixote said, ‘My dear friends, immured as you are, I cannot rescue you from your confinement; that adventure is reserved for some other knight.’

And so, weary but not wiser, Don Quixote and Sancho returned to their mules like a couple of senseless beasts, and went upon their way …

Hmmm … it appears that wind technology is not what it seemed. Alas dear reader and dear Vilma Radvilate of The European Energy Programme for Recovery,  the E E P R, intermittent, inefficient and uneconomic wind technology is not ‘good’ for the climate. The dream is not the reality.


(1) EU Offshore Wind Program Creates 4,000 Jobs Since 2009, 2012, commentary on the ‘Mid-term evaluation of the European Energy Programme for Recovery – Final Report. December 2011’, viewed 18 April 2012, <>. p. 1.

(2) Rosenbloom, E 2006, A Problem With Wind power, 5 September,

viewed 12 March 2012, <;. p. 4.

(7) pp1-2  (11) p1  (12) p3  (14) p3  (22) p 6 (23) p 9.

(3)  TonyfromOz 2009, The Limitations Of Renewable Power (Part 3), PA Pundits,  Viewed 30 March 2012,

<;. pp. 2-3.  (13) p 4

(4) Lea, R 2012,  Electricity Costs: The folly of wind-power, Report by CIVITAS: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, registered in England and Wales, viewed 7 April 2012 <>  See Hudson, P.

p. 15.  (8) pp6-7  (9)pp11-12 Tables 13-23.

(5) <;.  See Graham, B, Chairman, Highlands Against Windfarms, Orton, Moray. p. 11 (6)p11  (22) p11.

(10) Orlowski, A 2012, The true cost of British wind power, The Register, viewed 18 March 2012,  <;.

See Hughes, G 2012, Why is wind power so expensive? An economic analysis, p. 2.

(15) le Pair, C 2009, Electricity in The Netherlands: Wind turbines increase fossil fuel consumption & CO2 emission, viewed 9 April 2012, <hhtp://>. pp. 1-13.  (16)Table p.13  (19) p6.

(17) Lusvardi, W 2011, Windmill-Gate Scandal Storms Into CA, Calwatchdog,

viewed 9 April 2012, <;. p. 3.  See Udo, F, The Smoking Gun of the Windmill Fraud.

(18)  Bentek Energy 2010, How Less Became More: Wind, Power and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado Energy Market, 20 April, viewed 9 April 2012, <;. pp. 1-4.


So What About Solar Power and other renewables?

Some of us serfs’ think this’ll take bit of yer energy to read through but it’s worth it!

Herewith a sequence of six papers on renewable energy by geologist and engineer, Peter Lang, who has worked on a wide range of energy projects world wide,:  The sequence of papers begins with a conceptual case where a solar power station at a single location generates all the energy for the Australian National Electricity Market and stores it in either pumped hydro energy storage or batteries to provide a reliable power supply to meet demand.  The purpose of the paper is to explain some of the important concepts and constraints and show the high costs and the amount of energy storage that would be required for such a scenario (e.g. the amount of land area that would have to be inundated by pumped storage reservoirs).

“Solar power realities – supply-demand, storage and costs”

The following papers build on the first paper, progressively, covering:

  • solar thermal and transmission costs,
  • comparison of costs, CO2 emissions and time to transition to full implementation for five technology options to generate the power to meet our demand
  • a mix of 100% renewable energy technologies to power the NEM,
  • a mix of technologies with mostly nuclear power.

“Solar Realities and Transmission Costs – Addendum”

“Emission cuts realities for electricity generation – costs and CO2 emissions”

“100% renewable electricity for Australia – the cost”

“Renewables or Nuclear Electricity for Australia – the Costs” Some other papers are listed here:

Peter Lang has also undertaken comparative studies of four renewable energy scenarios and nuclear energy (5) in the following paper. You can read the full paper here:

“Renewables or Nuclear Electricity for Australia – the Costs”

I have posted extracts of Peter Lang’s study that I think overview the important issues of the five energy scenarios he presents regarding CO2 emissions intensity capital cost, cost of electricity and CO2 abatement costs (the abatements are for the whole system.).


Renewables or Nuclear Electricity for Australia-the Costs.

By Peter Lang.

28th April 201


Researchers at the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets (CEEM),

University of NSW, did a desk study and presented a paper “Simulations of Scenarios with 100% Renewable Electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market” (Elliston et al., 2011a) (hereafter EDM-2011).

The authors claim their study demonstrates that renewable energy could supply 100% of the Australian National Electricity Market’s (NEM) electricity and meet the demand with acceptable reliability. However, they did not estimate the costs of the system they simulated.

Lang (2012) critiqued EDM-2011 and made a crude estimate of the cost of the

scenario simulated and three variants of it. This paper extends that analysis by adding a fifth scenario, nuclear power, and comparing it with the four scenarios in Lang (2012.)

* Peter Lang is a retired geologist and engineer with 40 years experience on a wide range of energy projects throughout the world, including managing energy R&D and providing policy advice for government and opposition. His experience includes: hydro, geothermal, nuclear, coal, oil, and gas plants and a wide range of energy end use management projects.

The four renewable energy scenarios and the nuclear scenario are compared

on the basis of CO2 emissions intensity, capital cost, cost of electricity, and CO2 abatement cost (the comparisons are for the whole system).

The summary of Lang (2012) says:

“For the EDM-2011baseline simulation, and using costs derived from the Federal Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET, 2011b), the costs are estimated to be: $568 billion capital cost, $336/MWh cost of electricity and $290/tonne CO2 abatement cost.

That is, the wholesale cost of electricity for the simulated system would be seven times more than now, with an abatement cost that is 13 times the P 2/12 starting price of the Australian carbon tax and 30 times the European carbon price. This cost of electricity does not include the costs for the existing electricity network.

Although it ignores costings, the study is a useful contribution. It demonstrates that, even with highly optimistic assumptions, renewable energy cannot realistically provide 100% of Australia’s electricity generation. Their scenario does not have sufficient capacity to meet peak winter demand, has no capacity reserve and is dependent on a technology – ‘gas turbines running on biofuels’ – that exist only at small scale and at high cost.”

To investigate alternative scenarios that may address the issues of reliability of supply and the high cost of these scenarios, a fifth scenario has been costed. This paper compares the results presented in (Lang 2012) with a scenario in which most of the renewable energy generation is replaced with nuclear generation.

Scenarios 1 to 4 – Renewable electricity (mostly)

Lang (2012) estimated the emissions intensity, capital cost, cost of electricity and CO2 abatement cost for the EDM-2011 baseline scenario and for three variants of it. The three variants increase the reliability of supply and reduce the cost of electricity. The four scenarios compared were:

Scenario 1 – Baseline (i.e. gas turbines running on biofuels)

Scenario 2 – Baseline with gas turbines running on natural gas

Scenario 3 – Less renewable energy + more gas to improve reliability – Scenario 2 – with most pumped hydro capacity reassigned to hydro, reduced pumped hydro capacity factor, reduced capacity factor of Concentrating Solar Thermal (CST), Wind and Photo Voltaic (PV), increased natural gas capacity and capacity factor.

Scenario 4 – Reduce transmission capacity + more gas – Scenario 3 with half

transmission capacity from wind farms, half transmission capacity of interstate

interconnectors and reduced capacity factor of CST, PV and Wind generation because of transmission constraints.

P 3/12 Scenario 5 – The nuclear scenario.

This paper compares the CO2 emissions and costs of a nuclear scenario with the four scenarios presented in Lang (2012). The nuclear scenario, added here, is called Scenario 5 for convenience in comparing with the four scenarios compared in Lang (2012). Figure numbers are the same as the equivalent figure in Lang (2012), but  with the nuclear scenario added. In the nuclear scenario, nuclear power replaces most of the renewable energy generation capacity.


P6/12   CO2 emissions intensity

Figure 5 compares the CO2 emissions intensity of the five scenarios with the 2010 NEM emissions intensity (DCCEE, 2010). Appendix 1 provides calculations of CO2 emissions intensity for the nuclear scenario. The only source of emissions is natural gas generation, Scenarios 2 to5. The emissions intensity is for open cycle gas operating at their optimum efficiency; the emissions intensity is 0.622 t CO2/MWh ‘sent out’ (EPRI, 2010). This figure does not take into account: a. higher emissions produced when the gas turbines are operating at less than optimum efficiency, for example during start up, shut down, spinning reserve, part load and when their power is cycling up and down to respond to changes in demand and changes in the output of the renewable energy generators. If these higher emissions were included the emissions intensity for Scenarios 2 to 5 would be higher; b. fugitive emissions, whereas these are included for the NEM; c. life-cycle emissions, so they do not include the emissions embodied in the power plants.


The capital cost, Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) and CO2 abatement cost were estimated as per Lang (2012) for Scenarios 1 to 4. The methodology is the same for the Scenario 5 (Nuclear). However, DRET (2011b), which is the source of the unitrates for Scenarios 1 to 4, does not include unit rates for nuclear. The unit rates for nuclear are sourced from EPRI (2010) and ACIL-Tasman (2010). The unit rates for nuclear were derived by EPRI (2010) on the same basis as for the other technologies

P 7/12 so the unit costs for all five scenarios have been derived on a consistent basis. The inputs and intermediate calculation steps for the nuclear scenario are presented in Appendix 1 and, for Scenarios 1 to 4 are in appendix 1 of Lang (2012). All costs are in constant, 2009-10 Australian dollars. Capital costs are ‘Total Plant Cost’ and do not include ‘Owner’s Costs’ and ‘Interest During Construction’ (IDC).

Capital cost

The EPRI (2010) projected costs for new plants in 2015 were used for estimating the cost of the nuclear plant. The EPRI projected costs are for the first plant (for solar thermal and nuclear) and for the next plant of its type and size (for Wind, PV and OCGT). The projected costs for the first nuclear plant were used to calculate the cost of 20 GW of nuclear power. The average costs for 20 GW of nuclear power could be expected to be less than for the first plant. So the cost estimates for 20 GW of nuclear power are likely to be significantly overstated. This also applies for solar thermal.

As mentioned, the capital costs exclude Owner’s Costs and IDC. This is common for presenting LCOE figures in Australia. The same applies for all technologies compared in all five scenarios.

Cost of electricity

LCOE for the nuclear scenario is for the projected capital cost and the operation and maintenance cost for the first 1,100 MW plant. Both capital and O&M costs could be expected to reduce significantly as more plants are built. O&M costs are as per EPRI (2010) and ACIL Tasman (2010) and fuel costs are as per EPRI (2010). The other inputs for calculating LCOE are the same as for the fossil fuel plants in DRET (2010d).

CO2 abatement costs

The CO2 abatement cost is the cost to reduce emissions intensity from the CO2 emissions intensity in the NEM in 2010 to the emissions intensity that would exist with the nuclear scenario implemented. It is expressed as ‘cost per tonne CO2 abated’ ($/t CO2). The LCOE and CO2 emissions intensity for the NEM in 2010 are $45.40/MWh (DRET (2011a), p22) and 1.0 t/ MWh (DCCEE, 2010, Table 5,weighted average for NEM), respectively. The method of calculating CO2 abatement cost is explained in Lang (2012). The inputs and intermediate calculations forScenario 5 are in Appendix 1.

Renewables or nuclear electricity for Australia – the costs

Peter Lang Page 8 of 12 Created on 28/04/2012 11:08 AM

Uncertainties in cost estimates

The greatest uncertainties in the cost estimates are in:

  1. the fuel costs, capital costs and O&M costs for gas turbines running on biofuels,
  2. the cost of the solar thermal plants with 15 hours of thermal storage and their lifetime average capacity factor, and
  3. the amount of additional transmission and distribution capacity needed.

The uncertainties in the costs of nuclear are less than for the renewable scenarios because the nuclear technology has been proven over many decades and little additional transmission capacity is required. The uncertainties of the nuclear and renewable costs are given in EPRI (2010) and ACIL-Tasman (2010) and principally are the capital cost, with O&M cost a distant second.

Costs – comparison of five scenarios

Figure 6 compares the five scenarios on the basis of capital cost, cost of electricity and CO2 abatement cost


Transmission is a significant component of the costs of Scenarios 1 to 4, but not of Scenario 5. Figure 7 compares the capital cost and cost of electricity for the ‘copperplate’ additions to the transmission system (Scenarios 1, 2 and 3), the scenario with reduced additions to the transmission system (Scenario 4) and the nuclear scenario Renewables or nuclear electricity for Australia – the costs

P 9/12. (Scenario 5). The transmission cost calculations and assumptions for Scenarios 1 to 4 are presented in Lang (2012) Appendix 2, and for Scenario 5 (Nuclear) in Appendix 1 (below).


The nuclear scenario is roughly ¼ the capital cost, 1/3 the cost of electricity, and 1/3 the abatement cost of the EDM-2011 scenario, i.e. Scenario 1 – Baseline (i.e. gas turbines running on biofuels).

Furthermore, the nuclear scenario would provide a reliable electricity supply whereas the EDM-2011 scenario would not (Lang, 2012).

Of the four renewable energy scenarios considered, the fourth would provide the best reliability and least cost electricity. It’s CO2 emissions are 2.8 times higher than with the nuclear scenario.

The estimated capital cost of the additions to the transmission and distribution

networks, needed for the renewable energy scenarios, is $107 billion for Scenarios 1 to 3, $67 billion for Scenario 4, but just $6 billion for the nuclear scenario (Scenario5). The cost of the additions to the transmission and distribution system for the EDM baseline scenario is nearly as much as the total capital cost of the nuclear generation component, $115 billion, of the nuclear scenario (Appendix 1, Table A1-5-2).

Haf’ta say some of us serfs aren’t all that happy with these inter-mittent – back up – dependent – renewable – technologies, given that they more than double the costs of nuclear power, and given that they more than double CO2 abatement costs… yer might say it’s all pain and no gain. And given that nuclear energy isn’t all that popular with the plebs, and given that some of us serfs aren’t convinced by scare scenarios regardin’ plant lovin’ CO2, yew know, the boiling seas scenarios, oh, and given  the world’s facin’ risin’ populations,in lieu of risin’ seas … given’ – all – that .. .this serf thinks  that


Furthermore, dear readers, and Vilma Radvilate of the European Energy Program fer Recovery, the E E P R some of us serfs aren’t happy with guvuhmints’ imposition of carbon taxes.

This from mosomoso, Climate Etc, ‘Why Progressives Should Love a Carbon Tax.’ July 9/13.

“I get it, I get it. If you are a conservative or lib, just love a carbon tax, and for all the flimsy reasons repeated over the last few years. Your free market –  the Posh Left has discovered as a new and exciting Big Lever – just needs to be guided a little. In fact, a carbon market may have to be created against your will for your own good but it will then be guided by those who really know, like the New Class. Don’t you understand about “our kids” and asthma and pollution and, um stuff? It’s all from carbon, all that bad, um, stuff. And did we mention that stuff is worse than we thought?

Why this is practical capitalism at its best. So far is a carbon market from moldy old socialism, it is loved by stock-jobbers, skimmers, shills the world over. Its early champions, Enron and Lehman Bros, may be unavailable for comment, but their Spirit lives on. The sobering message for humanity:

‘Party like it’s 2007!’



The Bound and the Boundless …


Philip Larkin.

The widest prairies have electric fences,

For though old cattle know they must not stray

Young steers are always scenting purer water

Not here but anywhere. Beyond the wires

Leads them to blunder up against the wires

Whose muscle shredding violence gives no quarter.

Young steers become old cattle from that day,

Electric limits to their widest senses.

Illiwarra Lake.

Robert I. Ellison

A cold wind buffetting off the lake

captures the imagination for an instant,

plunging with the pelicans wing glancing

sunlight off feathers.

Lifting waves and spray against the reeds.

An instant playing out against a backdrop

of the shifting of continents.

Gondwana crumbling to eternity

amidst the stars and comets.

There is a challenge for humanity here.

Australia, India, China, Tibet, Iran,

 Japan, Arabia, Marie Byrd land.

Shall we crumble and fall like Gondwana

or loft to the winds of the future?

If I could wait like a stone on the shore,

fast dissolution in the storms of time.

If I could break the barrier of light

to freeze the instant, it would still be

unfolding to internity.

I would be big. I would fill the universe.

I would have to be me and have to be you.

We would have to be the sunlight on the waves,

 the rock, the wind, the water and the pelican.

 Comprehension of the universe fails and we are

left with the struggles of humanity.

 Cities crumbling under the onslaught

of our division, hunger and pestilence

stalking the night.


7 thoughts on “THIRD EDITION

  1. Thx mosomos,
    Serfs do so luv the Beach Boys lol not that we can spend
    much time on the beach, too busy in the fields hoin’ beet.

  2. Serf, I left a note on my site explaining why I can comment but others not. I’ll repeat it here, in case it really is the solution:

    Go to comments, then “settings”, then “discussion”. (It’s all on the left under the W and your site name. Don’t go to “settings” on your dashboard etc. (Now, in settings, check to see if the wrong box is ticked or unticked. Especially, make sure you are not requiring registration or login from commenters. I can comment, because I’m a logged in WordPresser, but non WP people can’t comment if that box is ticked.

  3. The Third edition. Well done Beth. I expect the income you derive from Big windmill must more than cover your costs of your burgeoning print empire and perhaps leaves a few groats left overs for new sacks to use as clothes?

    Exciting Tomato update news. This year they are growing well and we had the first ones a few weeks ago.

    The snails seem to have retreated for the time being. The runner beans are growing.


  4. Say, Tony,
    Never enough groats but live in hopes.
    Good news about the tomatoes, yer ground _breaking tomato
    rings climate study looks hopeful too!
    Beth the serf.

  5. Beth

    Been travelling and not checking in very often – but have now caught up with your very interesting and entertaining “Third Edition”.


    Max (‘nuther serf)

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