Alla pari poimintaa ajatuksia herättävästä artikkelista, jossa Walden kertoo varsin surullisia tarinoita toteutetuista tuulivoimalaprojekteista:
"After the debacle of the First California Wind Rush, the European Union had moved ahead of the US on efforts to subsidize "renewable" energy--including a "Feed in Tariff" even more lucrative than the ISO4 contracts. EU governments provided government-backed securities to support utilities burdened by Feed-in Tariff costs. But last year, as the national debt of wind-intensive EU countries became unbearable, the EU subsidy bubble burst".
Walden lainaa kirjoituksessa Juan Carlos -yliopiston professoria Gabriel Calzadaa:
"In early 2009 the Socialist government of Spain reduced alternative energy subsidies by 30%".
"At that point the whole pyramid collapsed. They are firing thousands of people. BP closed down the two largest solar production plants in Europe. They are firing between 25,000 and 40,000 people...."
"What do we do with all this industry that we have been creating with subsidies that now is collapsing? The bubble is too big. We cannot continue pumping enough money. ...The President of the Renewable Industry in Spain (wrote a column arguing that) ...the only way is finding other countries that will give taxpayers' money away to our industry to take it and continue maintaining these jobs."
Walden lainaa kirjoituksessaan myös Heritage Foundationen Ben Liebermania, jonka näkemys on varsin selvä:
"If wind power made sense, why would it need a government subsidy in the first place? It's a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end."
Suomeenkin ollaan rakentamassa runsaasti uusia tuulivoimaloita lähinnä ilmastopoliittisin perustein. Olin itsekin jossain vaiheessa innostunut tuulivoimasta, mutta ajan mittaan innostukseni on huomattavasti laantunut. Veronmaksajana olen sitä mieltä, että kannattaisi hyvin kriittisesti tarkastella kaikkia näitä suunnitelmia, jotta ei syyyllistytä samanlaisiin virheisiin kuin muualla.
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpag ... sts_1.html
"Wind industry lobbyists have been exceedingly effective in winning huge tax breaks and subsidies from governments. When initially proposed, wind energy advocates argued that tax breaks and subsidies were necessary to permit a relatively “new and developing technology” to gain a foothold in competition with other sources of energy for producing electricity. However, industry demands for continuation, expansion and extension of subsidies have made it clear that there are no longer any serious expectations that wind energy is competitive or that improvements in the technology will eventually make it competitive.
Instead, it appears that the only hope that wind energy would become economically competitive with traditional energy sources is if the cost of electricity from traditional sources were driven much higher – with all the adverse impacts on electric customers and local and national economies that result from high electricity prices".
Hyvä arvio tuulivoiman todellisista kustannuksista löytyy tästä:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp- ... m-Wind.pdf
Researchers at the Unviersity of Texas at Arlington say they've found a practical way to make synthetic crude from inexpensive coal that's common in Texas
Alla linkit kolmeen kirjoitukseen, joista saa hyvää aiheeseen liittyvää lisävalaistusta. Suosittelen kirjoituksia myös suomalaisille ministereille ja muille päättäjille, jotka puheissaan jatkuvasti toistelevat tuota "uusiutuvan energian" mantraa.
Amerikkalainen taloustieteilijä Shannon Love:
Why Alternative Power Is and Will Remain Useless
"There exists no alternative energy source, no combination of alternative energy sources, and no system of combinations of alternative energy sources that can fully replace a single, coal fired electric plant built with 1930s era technology.
Yet many want to make this group of functionally useless technologies the primary energy sources for our entire civilization."
"In the future, every time someone extols the supposed virtues of “alternative power” just ask them, “Can this system replace a single coal plant that uses 80-year-old technology?”
The honest answer will always be no. You most likely won’t get an honest answer but it will be interesting to see the expression on their face."
Wolf Howling kommentoi ja täydentäa Shannon Loven näkemyksiä:
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2010/03 ... tions.html
The Guardianin (alarmistileiriin kuuluva) George Moonbiot ei hänkään kuulu Gordon Brownin uuden syöttötariffipolitiikan ihailijoihin:
Are we really going to let ourselves be duped into this solar panel rip-off?Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives, and nobody notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2bn, or 95%. Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded.
On 1 April the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didn't know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -in-tariff
Jättelik vindkraftspark i Piteå
Regeringen har godkänt byggandet av 1.100 vindkraftverk i Piteå kommun. Vid full utbyggnad motsvarar det el från två kärnkraftverk.
"Detta är en exempellöst stor vindkraftsutbyggnad. Det motsvarar 8-12 TWh el per år", sade miljöminister Andreas Carlgren vid en pressträff. (Dagens Industri)
Lehden lukijoiden kommenteista päätellen päätöstä ei pidetä kovinkaan järkevänä. Mutta naapurimaassammekin poliittiset päättäjät ovat vähintään viiden - kymmenen vuoden jälkijunassa. Lisäksi tuo propagandistinen väite kahden ydinvoimalan energiatuotannon korvaamisesta on kirjaimellisesti tuulesta temmattu.
I won't list all the points Leggett fails to address – his space was limited - but the killer fact he ignores is this: feed-in tariffs cannot reduce our carbon emissions by 1g while the UK remains within the European emissions trading scheme. This is because any savings they make will be offset by the extra emissions that other industries will be allowed to release. Either we are in the trading scheme and must make it work, in which case measures like the tariff are redundant, or we accept that it doesn't work and get out of it. But at the moment all the feed-in tariff can do is to subsidise polluting industries to produce more greenhouse gases.
To the greens who accuse me of treachery I say this: we do not have a moral obligation to support all forms of renewable energy, however inefficient and expensive they may be. We do have a moral obligation not to be blinded by sentiment. We owe it to the public, and to our credibility, to support the schemes which work, fairly and cheaply, and reject the schemes which cost a fortune and make no difference.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g ... -in-tariff
Myös USA:ssa arvostellaan subventoitua aurinkoenergiaa:
a 1000-MW solar array — the size of an average coal or nuclear plant — would cost $5 billion, putting it right up there with the most expensive reactors and coal plants with carbon capture. But the solar panels only generate electricity one-third of the time. “We’d love to tell you that solar power is as economical as fossil fuels, but the reality is that it is not,” says Lewis Hay II, CEO of Florida Power and Light, which has built the complex. “It’s not a level playing field for renewable versus fossils right now.” Indeed.
Why would anyone build such a monstrosity? The reason is simple. State legislatures have decided, in their wisdom, that “renewable energy” is the future. (In fact, there is no such thing as renewable energy — that’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics.) Therefore, the legislatures are marching us in that direction.
Such facilities serve only two purposes: 1) To satisfy the whims of state legislatures; and 2) to create pretty pictures for billboard ads and the covers of annual reports. In both they are a triumphant success.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/po ... VlODk4MTg=
Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun
Soon, Puertollano, home to the Museum of the Mining Industry, had two enormous solar power plants, factories making solar panels and silicon wafers, and clean energy research institutes. Half the solar power installed globally in 2008 was installed in Spain.
Farmers sold land for solar plants. Boutiques opened. And people from all over the world, seeing business opportunities, moved to the city, which had suffered from 20 percent unemployment and a population exodus.
But as low-quality, poorly designed solar plants sprang up on Spain’s plateaus, Spanish officials came to realize that they would have to subsidize many of them indefinitely, and that the industry they had created might never produce efficient green energy on its own.
In September the government abruptly changed course, cutting payments and capping solar construction. Puertollano’s brief boom turned bust. Factories and stores shut, thousands of workers lost jobs, foreign companies and banks abandoned contracts that had already been negotiated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/busin ... solar.html
Wind power is a complete disaster
There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... z0hoYhsrBS
Toivottavasti Trebilcockin, tanskalaisten, saksalaisten ja muiden sanoma pikkuhiljaa alkaisi vaikuttaa myös meidän omien poliittiste päättäjiemme ajatteluun ....
Particularly disturbing is the extent to which the disaster has been downplayed by professional bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Britain and the Audubon Society in the US, which should be at the forefront of exposing this outrage, but which have often been drawn into a conflict of interest by the large sums of money they derive from the wind industry itself.
There is plenty of evidence for the worldwide scale of this tragedy. The world’s largest and most carefully monitored wind farm, Altamont Pass in California, is estimated to have killed between 2,000 and 3,000 golden eagles alone in the past 20 years. Since turbines were erected on the isle of Smola, off Norway, home to an important population of white-tailed sea eagles, destruction is so great that last year only one chick survived. Thanks to wind farms in Tasmania, a unique sub-species of wedge-tailed eagles faces extinction. And here in Britain, plans to build eight wind farms on the Hebridean islands, among Scotland’s largest concentration of golden eagles, now pose a major threat to the species’ survival in the UK.
For the rest of us, it is a criminal offence to kill bats and golden eagles. But it seems that all those under the spell of the infatuation with windpower and global warming can claim exemption from the law. In return for ludicrously small amounts of very expensive electricity, wildlife must pay the price for their dreams.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... agles.html
Wind turbines will add up to 0.15 °C to global mean temperature
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics published a new paper by C. Wang and R.G. Prinn (MIT) called
Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms
Their result is kind of impressive. Even if wind turbines produce only 10% of the electricity consumed in 2100, their effect will translate to 1 °C of warming locally but, because of the extended effect of the local changes, it will also add 0.15 °C to the global mean temperature.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/wind- ... -c-to.html
Feeble wind farms fail to hit full power
THE first detailed study of Britain’s onshore wind farms suggests some treasured landscapes may have been blighted for only small gains in green energy.
The analysis reveals that more than 20 wind farms produce less than a fifth of their potential maximum power output.
One site, at Blyth Harbour in Northumberland, is thought to be the worst in Britain, operating at just 7.9% of its maximum capacity. Another at Chelker reservoir in North Yorkshire operates at only 8.7% of capacity.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 069938.ece
The Sunday Timesin pääkirjoitus:
Too much wind and not enough puff
This might not matter except that such low output adds to the already high cost of wind generation. More seriously than that, many of these wind farms got planning permission only because they had claimed levels of power output that have never been achieved. Communities have been left with the huge and noisy wind farms on their doorsteps, knowing they are producing little energy.
If onshore wind is disappointing, solar power is likely to be even more so, especially in Britain. A recent study by the Institute for Energy Research, based in Germany, found that the country’s renewable energy policy, including the so-called feed-in tariffs about to be introduced in the UK, resulted in “massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security”. Solar power was a particular culprit, with subsidies per worker exceeding average wages but with very little to show for it.
This is the kind of problem that arises when renewable targets are set from on high, in this case from the European Union. It wants 20% of energy across Europe to be generated from renewable sources by 2020. This is folly of the highest order if the only way it can be done is inefficiently and expensively and at the cost of damaging our environment. Far better to push on with technologies we know can deliver, such as nuclear and clean coal. The answer, sadly, is not blowing in the wind.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 069806.ece
Vain kolmisen vuotta sitten energiajätti BP kertoi suuriäänisesti huomattavasta auronkoenergiainvestoinnista Marylandissa. Nyt BP ilmoittaa lopettavansa aurinkopanelitehtaansa ja siirtävänsä tuotannon halvempiin maihin:
BP will close its solar-panel manufacturing plant in Frederick, the final step in moving its solar business out of the United States to facilities in China, India and other countries.
“We remain absolutely committed to solar,” BP chief executive Tony Hayward said in an interview Friday. But he said BP was “moving to where we can manufacture cheaply
http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/03/27 ... ing.org%29
Suomessakin poliitikot puhuvat mielellään uusista "vihreistä" työpaikoista. Mutta miksi tilanne meillä olisi erilainen kuin USA:ssa? Jos Kiinassa voi tuottaa tuulimyllyjä tai aurinkokennoja paljon halvemmalla, ei ole todennäköistä, että niitä tullaan tekemään Suomessa. Mutta juhla- ja seminaaripuheissahan Pekkarisen ja muiden on mukava maalata ruusuisia tulevaisuudenkuvia ....
Tuossa dokumentissa on myös käsitelty tuulivoimaa Helsingin energiantuottamisvaihtoehtona kriittisesti.
Siinä myös näytettiin kuinka tuulimylly toimii giljotiininä linnuille (n. 23 min 30sek kohdalla).