Guest Post On Wind Energy By Dr. C. (Kees) Le Pairhttp://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/guest-post-on-wind-energy-by-dr-c-kees-le-pair/
Denmark and Germany have not decommissioned any fossil fuel plants. The fossil generators are kept in ‘spinning reserve’, burning fossil fuels to keep lights on in the schools, factories, and hospitals when the wind dies. In January 2010, Britain’s wind turbines supplied virtually no power on most days. The wind tends not to blow when and where it’s already cold. (4)
Over the past decade, California’s 1,500 MW of windmills have averaged 25 percent of their ‘nameplate’ capacity. During peak summer demand it was only 9 percent. Germany has found its windmills producing only 6 percent of its installed capacity
Wind and solar-generated electricity already enjoy subsidies nearly 50 times higher per unit of energy than ordinary coal and 100 times higher than natural gas. (5) The Royal Academy of engineering in the UK in 2004 estimated that the cost of wind power is two-and-a-half times the cost of other forms of electricity. (6) Guess who pays for all the subsidies and inefficiencies? Denmark, touted for its lead in wind turbines, has the highest electric rates of any industrialized nation, an average of about $.38 per kWh compared to $.08 in the US
Wind turbines have a land use intensity—the amount of land required to produce a unit of power—nearly 4 times that of natural gas, more than 7 times that of coal and 30 times that of nuclear. (13) A single 555 mega-watt gas fired power plant in California generates more electricity per year than do all 13,000 of the state’s wind turbines. The gas-fired plant occupies just 15 acres. The 300 foot tall wind turbines impact 106,000 acres, destroy scenic vistas and kill tens of thousands of birds and bats every year.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.asp ... f61cdd672f
Renewables simply can’t produce the large volumes of reliable energy that our economy needs. “These energy sources are so intermittent and unreliable that you have to have backup power at all times,” says Prof. Trebilcock. For every wind farm we build, we’ll have to have a coal or gas-fired power station waiting in the wings to take over when it’s 20 below. “I think we’ll get next to nothing on carbon dioxide abatement,” he says.
Mr. Monbiot agrees. Germany, he says, has spent €1.2-billion on solar roofs. Their total contribution to the country’s electricity supply was 0.4 per cent. Their total contribution to carbon savings is zero.
But what about green jobs? The McGuinty government confidently predicts that its green scheme will create 50,000 of them. Don’t believe it. Some will be temporary construction jobs. Some other jobs will disappear because higher electricity costs will make Ontario less competitive. And many of the new jobs will be extremely costly to create. In Denmark, the wind-power darling of the world, subsidies per net job created have amounted to $90,000 to $149,000 a year, according to one independent study. In Germany, job subsidies have cost as much as $249,000 a year.
So who are the winners? The companies that harvest the subsidies. They’re flocking to Ontario like fruit flies to a bowl of overripe peaches. The government is trying to create a feel-good story by showcasing the little guys – such as schools that want to install solar roofs, and native-run wind companies with names such as Mother Earth (despite the fact that little guys are the most inefficient operators of all). But it’s the big guys who are the biggest winners – multinational corporations such as the Korean giant Samsung, with which Mr. McGuinty struck a $7-billion deal, and Brookfield Renewable Power, which plans to generate more power than all the little guys put together.
The world is littered with cautionary tales about subsidized renewables and overblown promises. Spain went wild on solar, and set off a speculative boom. Inefficient, poorly designed plants popped up everywhere. The lavish subsidies inflated costs. When Spain plunged into recession, the subsidies were ratcheted back, and the industry collapsed.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1529760/
Brazil's biofueled paradise is looking more and more like a carbon-spewing wasteland
The top scientist at the U.K. Department for the Environment recently warned that mandating more biofuel use as proposed by the European Union would be "insane," as this would lead to an increase in greenhouse gases. Sweden, the only European country that already imports Brazilian ethanol for its public transportation system, used to think biofuels were heaven but now believes they are hell. After allegations that some Brazilian sugar cutters were paid paltry wages, were underage, and even perished at a young age from exhaustion, Swedish motorists threatened to cease their use of this supposedly green fuel. To make matters worse for the burgeoning Brazilian ethanol industry, the United Nations has added its voice to the chorus of critics. Achim Steiner, head of the body's environment program, declared that growing international demand for ethanol would threaten the Amazon if safeguards were not put in place.
Shooting back at critics across the Atlantic, President Lula said that biofuels were actually an effective weapon in the struggle against global warming. Lula chided Europe further, claiming that the developed world was simply jealous of Brazil's emergence as a major agricultural powerhouse. "Just when Brazil appears on the world stage not as a bit part actor but as the lead in a play about agricultural production ... people start to get uncomfortable, very uncomfortable." Furthermore, the Brazilian politician remarked, European competitors were using the environment as a red herring to stall Brazil's biofuel industry. "We have adversaries that will make up any kind of slander against the quality of ethanol," Lula declared. But as Brazil attempts to roll into an ethanol-fueled future, the attacks Lula denounces will become increasingly valid.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... n?page=0,0
Espanjalaisen asiantuntijan mukaan nyt paljastuneet tapaukset ovat vain jäävuoren huippu ....
it was established during inspections that several solar power plants were generating current and feeding it into the net at night. To simulate a larger installation capacity, the operators connected diesel generators.
"This is just the tip of the iceberg," said one industry expert to the newspaper "El Mundo", which brought the scandal to light. If solar systems apparently produce current in the dark, will be noticed sooner or later. However, if electricity generators were connected during daytime, the swindle would hardly be noticed.
http://www.bluewin.ch/de/index.php/24,2 ... chaft/sda/
In a post on his blog Krugman pretty much removes all doubt when he writes (emphasis added):
First, power generation has to be “decarbonized”: solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, and maybe some fossil fuels with carbon capture have to replace coal-fired plants. This is within the reach of current technologies.
Yes, you read that right. Krugman says that replacing coal-fired power is within the reach of current technologies. Krugman is absolutely correct in a mathematical sense. We could indeed replace all current coal fired generation in the United States with about 325 new nuclear power plants (1 GW) or about 300,000 new wind turbines (the big ones, 2.5 MW, setting aside minor issues like storage or grid integration). (Data from The Climate Fix) However, Krugman is completely wrong from anything resembling a practical sense.
Krugman then says:
Second, residential and commercial use — much of it for heating — also has to be largely decarbonized; if power generation is decarbonized, much of this can be done by switching to electricity.
OK, let's switch to electricity. That means more than a doubling the numbers above -- more than 650 new nuclear power plants or 600,000 new wind turbines. Let me interpret what these numbers mean -- Not within reach. Krugman then suggests electrification of the transportation sector as well -- but with numbers like these what are a few hundred more nuclear power plants or few hundred thousand more wind turbines?
I won’t say that it’s easy; but given the right incentives, we can do this.
Now, I am not an economist. But I'd sure like to see the nature of incentives that lead to 750 new nuclear power plants being built, or any other deployment of "technology with reach" at this scale.
Oh yeah, a price on carbon should do the trick . . .
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/ ... doubt.html
Manhattan Instituten tutkija Robert Bryce kertoo Washington Postissa, ettei kaikkeen mitä kerrotaan "vihreästä" energiasta ole syytä uskoa.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02220.html
Dear environmentally aware citizen of the world!
The Danish government plans to clear forests and destroy unique nature for the benefit of industry.
The Danish environment minister Troels Lund Poulsen decided, on behalf of the government, on 30th September 2009, that the clearing of 15 km2 of forest in the north west of Denmark will take place. A test centre for the development of offshore windmills is planned to take up 30 km2 of land in the Thy region, near Østerild. This deforestation will create an increase of 400,000 tonnes of CO2 emission, the equivalent of the CO2 emission of 100,000 people per year.
The government will force the local population out of their homes. The reasoning behind this is said to be for the benefit of the Danish windmill industry, which will in turn create more Danish jobs. The regulations to finalise the evictions goes against Denmark’s constitution and is therefore clearly illegal.
In current plans, the area is categorised as a recreational area, where the set up of windmills is prohibited.
The region is one of Denmark’s most beautiful areas. With its rugged landscapes and grand views, as well as many rare species of animals, birds and plants, the area is representative of authentic Danish nature. There are very few areas of Denmark left, where one can experience darkness at night and complete silence.
The windmills, which are 250 meters tall, are planned to be along a 6 km linear south/north stretch. This will prevent birds in the international Ramsar-area, Vejlerne, which is situated to the east of the test centre, from flying west to the EU-habitat area Vullum Sø and to Thy National Park just south of Hanstholm.
The Danish government has not consulted properly about the plans. The Danish citizens had little time to put forward comments of the project. The hearing has only been 11 days long, with 9 of those being a national holiday.
The environment minister has decided that a report on this projects impact on nature and the wildlife will be completed by early December 2009. The consequence of this is that it is impossible to produce a well documented scientific report, to act as the foundation for a political decision.
The local population has formed an association, “Landforeningen for Bedre Miljø” (The Association for an Improved Environment) with the aim to inform about the environmental consequences for both the society and nature, if plans for the national test centre are followed through. So far, “Landsforeningen for Bedre Miljø“ has tried, in vain, to persuade the Danish government to produce a more thorough investigation of the project’s impacts on the surroundings.
The association is discontented with the planning process so far, because they have neglected ordinary, well-known, democratic principles, which Denmark otherwise uses every opportunity to talk about across the world.
If you, as an environmentally aware citizen of the world, thinks that questions ought to be asked concerning this unjust conduct towards our future generations inheritance of the nature, please spread the word about this planned national test centre.
Ei voi muuta kuin toivoa, että kansainvälinen painostus saa Tanskan hallituksen järkiinsä
Tuulimyllyistä syntyi vuokrakilpailu
Maanantai 31.5.2010 klo 12.45
Tuulivoimayhtiöt tekevät kymppitonnin arvoisia vuokrasopimuksia yksityisten maanomistajien kanssa, kertoo Aamulehti.
http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2010053 ... 1_uu.shtml
According to government figures, the average wind turbine operates to just 27 per cent of its capacity – even the industry only claims 30 per cent – and there are some grounds for suggesting that even this is a significant exaggeration. Professor Michael Jefferson, of the London Metropolitan Business School, says that in 2008 less than a fifth of onshore wind farms achieved 30 per cent capacity.
One analysis of the government figures, albeit commissioned by wind farm opponents, suggested that Britain’s biggest wind farm – the 140-turbine installation at Whitelee, near East Kilbride – operated to just 7.3 per cent of its capacity that year.
That might be all right if we could store electricity for when it is needed – but we can’t, at least not in large quantities. The power companies have to generate it at exactly the moment you want to use it.
Why, then, are we so “fixated” with wind? The number of onshore wind turbines is likely to treble in the next few years. A total of 7,000 turbines, on and off-shore, are either under construction, approved for building or seeking planning permission.
Part of the answer may be that wind turbines are visible, tangible symbols of political commitment and moral righteousness. Mr Clegg’s party wants 15,000 of them, and the Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, also a Lib Dem, has described them as “beautiful”. The Lib Dems are also fiercely against nuclear, though their Tory partners are not.
The rest of the answer appears to be subsidy. The Government pays an indirect subsidy, a “renewable obligation”, or RO – and putting up a wind turbine is the cheapest way to collect it. In contrast to better renewable technologies, a turbine is inexpensive to build, perhaps around £2 million, and it lasts at least 20 years.
The total RO paid to the wind industry last year was £400 million. So each of Britain’s wind turbines earned, on average, £138,000 in subsidy last year – more than Mrs Clegg’s husband makes. Add in the profits from selling the electricity they generate and after construction costs are cleared, you will be making nearly £300,000 per year per turbine, half of it courtesy of the Government.
It does make for some slightly perverse outcomes. Research and development on new renewable technologies – which might be able to reduce CO2 without needing to build large towers in the countryside – get far less subsidy than wind farms.
And one of the reasons so many of Britain’s wind turbines turn so little is that the subsidy doesn’t depend on where you put them. Developers like building wind farms in places such as Lincolnshire, where the countryside is dull and there is relatively little public opposition. Unfortunately, there is also relatively little wind in Lincolnshire.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/782368 ... farms.html
For sure, you can create a temporary jobs boom, but these are artificial, and the exercise is as useful as paying people to dig a hole in the ground, then fill it in. Spanish economist Professor Gabriel Calzada, at the University of Madrid estimated that each green job had cost the country $774,000.
Worse, a "green" job costs 2.2 jobs that might otherwise have been created - a figure Calzada derived by dividing the average subsidy per worker by the average productivity per worker. Industry, which can't afford to pay the higher fuel bills, simply moves elsewhere.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/17 ... lity_scam/
Professori Calzadan tutkimus löytyy tästä:
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327 ... ewable.pdf
Nyt maksetaan tuulivoiman sulkemisesta tuulisella säällä :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy ... owing.html
Päästökaupan sijaan voitaisiin siinä ties mihin katoavat varat siirtää sähkön varastointiteknologian kehittämiseen, se kai se suurin murhe on.
It was hailed as Britain’s first “green” island and a glimpse of the what the future could hold for the rest of the country.
But when the inhabitants of the remote Scottish island of Eigg put their faith in the wind and rain to provide all their electricity they did not reckon for one thing – mild weather.
Now the 95 residents are being asked not to use kettles, toasters or other kitchen appliances after uncharacteristically mild weather caused a critical shortage of power.
Other household equipment such as washing machines are to be used only outside times of “peak demand for the island’s 45 homes and 20 businesses.
Weeks of what passes for heatwave conditions in the Inner Hebrides have caused water levels on the island’s three main burns to drop uncharacteristically low, cutting off the island’s hydroelectricity supply.
The normally powerful Atlantic gusts in the tiny island south of Skye have also reduced to a pleasant breeze leaving the island’s wind turbines idle for hours on end.
As a result, the community owned power company has placed the island on “red alert” and issued notices effectively rationing electricity.
It has had to revert to using old-fashioned diesel power to run a backup generator to keep the lights on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy ... ought.html
The math is really very simple - wind power is not free, it is not reliable ,it is very expensive and despite all the cost does not do what it is claimed to do.
http://www.ozclimatesense.com/2010/07/d ... mount.html