Archives

...says "installed capacity" will fall well short of actual generation and divert resources from conventional generation plants (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2910741/Windfarms-One-of-the-great-deceptions-of-our-time.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/tntnewton.jpgChristopher Booker - The Telegraph – 13 Sept, 16, 2008

I'm sure he knows more than T. Boone Pickens and the Danes - Ed

I long had no particular views on wind farms one way or the other. But six years ago, when I first seriously looked at what they actually contribute to our energy needs and our environment, I had a profound shock. It was clear that the craze for wind energy had become one of the greatest self-deceptions of our time.

Far from being “free”, wind is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity yet devised. Without an almost 100 per cent subsidy, unwittingly paid by all of us through our electricity bills, no one would dream of building giant wind turbines in Britain, because their cost is not remotely competitive. … http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2910741/Windfarms-One-of-the-great-deceptions-of-our-time.html

lets not forget the air pressure it generates kills living flying things!

look up bat lungs exploding on youtube

I'm not entirely for or against wind energy. However, I do believe that we need to be looking at wind, solar, and any other potential energy source. Coal and gas are no longer unlimited resources. No matter what energy source you choose, there will be a tradeoff somewhere.

I'm not sure what is presented is all that well thought out. If we were discussing the construction of the first coal electric power plants I suspect that much the same could be said. "That big plant over there spewing out smoke all over the place and those wire running down the road, they are a real hazard when the break, why people can get electrocuted, let's just keep our candles."


To claim that there is a need for backup capacity equivalent to the capacity of the wind turbines so when the wind stops is a real exaggeration even in the UK. The wind does not stop everywhere at once. So the wind doesn't blow in TX it's blowing in KS and NE. I would think that in the UK the grid is every bit as interconnected. Our grid is so interconnected that the energy can be shipped where it is needed and thus wind can eliminate the need for some of the coal plants.

It seems that the only viable gripe about wind power is how its generation is presented. If a turbine typicaly produces 1/4 of its maximum output in any given year, then the rating could simply be stated "This turbine produces 'X' megawatts at 25% of max duty." Problem solved!

Winds don't blow the same speed all the time!!?? Wow, I didn't know that!!

The above is why we need turbines everywhere they can get decent wind. When they are dropping in one place, they might be starting up in another. We might need 2,000,000 3 Megawatt generators-so what? They would cost maybe $2 to $3 trillion- or 2 to 3 Iraq wars,and those wars don't and won't produce anything but dead and maimed soldiers. We can afford it.
Charlie

Winds don't blow the same speed all the time!!?? Wow, I didn't know that!!

The above is why we need turbines everywhere they can get decent wind. When they are dropping in one place, they might be starting up in another. We might need 2,000,000 3 Megawatt generators-so what? They would cost maybe $2 to $3 trillion- or 2 to 3 Iraq wars,and those wars don't and won't produce anything but dead and maimed soldiers. We can afford it.
Charlie


It's easy to see why wind farms are criticized. In many places, Wind is the weak sister of alternative energy.
A lot of folks believe it would be better not to dilute our efforts away from other solutions.
Like nukes maybe, as they did in France.

I think you might be off-base about the results of wars. The American revolutionary war produced freedom.
And our entry into WW2 likely saved a lot of American lives in the long run.
I can't imagine what this world would be like today if America decided to stay home for that one.

.....

And our entry into WW2 likely saved a lot of American lives in the long run.
I can't imagine what this world would be like today if America decided to stay home for that one.

Actually we did sort of stay home in WWII until Japan and then Germany declared war on us and we didn't think we should just surrender:). Frankly I think the Russians would've eventually prevailed over Hitler (they did the bulk of the fighting as it was) and that Japanese dominance of Asia wouldn't have been that much worse for the US than Mao's dominance, so it's hard to say how things would've ended up for the US. The lesson that we should learn is that Germany and Japan lost the war by declaring war against somebody they didn't need to fight (i.e. the US) . It turns out that a lot of our leaders don't bother to study history.

The medium to long term effect of the Iraq war will likely be Iranian control of the Iraqi oil fields:(, so we urgently need to do things to enhance our energy security. Unfortunately the expense of the Iraq war has put the next administration in a big fiscal hole that means nobody should be expecting major windmill initiatives (or large tax cuts) regardless of what the candidates promise.

It's easy to see why wind farms are criticized. In many places, Wind is the weak sister of alternative energy.
A lot of folks believe it would be better not to dilute our efforts away from other solutions.
Like nukes maybe, as they did in France.

Please don't nuke (or at least do it is few as possible). All over the world only a dozen of nuclear plants are "clean" (ie next generation) and most are currently in construction. All other are dirty, ie generating nuclear wastes that will be dangerous during hundreds of thousand years. Each one works during 30-40 years : this is so much long term nuclear wastes...

From tomorrow to Wednesday, 3kWc of solar panels will be installed on my roof. It is also a "deceptive" solution : it costs me 15 years of my electricity bills and corresponds only to a third of my needs. It will be profitable only thanks to the resell of my production 5 times more expensive than how much I buy it (0.55€/kWh instead of 0.11€/kWh) during the next 20 years. These 3kWc are very little, but I will be happy to avoid the use of 1.5g of uranium or 10kg of CO2 per week.

The renewable plants (wind, solar...) may be considered as deceptive nowadays, but they don't generate short, mid or long term wastes (particules, GHG, nuclear wastes...).

By eco-driving/hypermiling, this is also as much petrol that isn't refined and wastes that isn't generated. This is considered as deceptive by several people I know as it's a lot of work for a very little result, but as I reply to them : "if everybody do a little bit of the work then we can do a lot of things".

Denis.

Without an almost 100 per cent subsidy, unwittingly paid by all of us through our electricity bills,
I (wittingly) chose an alternative energy supplier for my electric service. They use wind, some small hydro and landfill methane. There IS admittedly a significant surcharge, but this also allows them to add capacity and do research.
All methods of generation are subsidized one way or another.

Please don't nuke (or at least do it is few as possible). All over the world only a dozen of nuclear plants are "clean" (ie next generation) and most are currently in construction. All other are dirty, ie generating nuclear wastes that will be dangerous during hundreds of thousand years. Each one works during 30-40 years : this is so much long term nuclear wastes...

From tomorrow to Wednesday, 3kWc of solar panels will be installed on my roof. It is also a "deceptive" solution : it costs me 15 years of my electricity bills and corresponds only to a third of my needs. It will be profitable only thanks to the resell of my production 5 times more expensive than how much I buy it (0.55€/kWh instead of 0.11€/kWh) during the next 20 years. These 3kWc are very little, but I will be happy to avoid the use of 1.5g of uranium or 10kg of CO2 per week.

The renewable plants (wind, solar...) may be considered as deceptive nowadays, but they don't generate short, mid or long term wastes (particules, GHG, nuclear wastes...).

By eco-driving/hypermiling, this is also as much petrol that isn't refined and wastes that isn't generated. This is considered as deceptive by several people I know as it's a lot of work for a very little result, but as I reply to them : "if everybody do a little bit of the work then we can do a lot of things".

Denis.

From what I heard the amount of waste produced at one nuclear power plant is sized up to a small bathroom over a year.

Its waste that is manageable.

Duh WHAT????-Xringer - I was pretty clear and said the Iraq war . I sure as heck didn't mention WW2 or any other war.

Learn to read.

Wind power does have its place. Some places have almost constant wind, making them ideal for wind generators. However the writer of the article is right and wind isn't a solve-all solution. He's totally off on the idea that wind power will "destabilize" the power grid. That's not true at all if well designed so that the system isn't dependent on wind power. Any decent engineer is going to look at a wind power station and use it's minimum output number for the year in planning the rest of the system. How wind power works is it gives off power, which lessons the load on other power plants, reducing the amount of fuel needed at those stations. However power plants have a peak efficiency operating point, and if you take away too much power from them they operate very inefficiently. However you hope that wind power takes away the need for power plants like gas power plants, which are often only used intermittently.

He's missing important energy per cost statistics that I need to really believe what he's saying. I'm not convinced that wind power is expensive, or inexpensive.

The transient sources - wind, solar, maybe wave - won't replace 'conventional' sources. There is no banking of energy contributed, so the old ways will remain, for a while, anyway. This is a big complaint of european wind and solar systems and basically, it's true. ("We've bought 2 power systems!")

As mentioned, however, they will significantly stretch the conventional plants and resources.

I'm curious as to how the grid will be managed with such quickly fluctuating sources.

One major meta-problem is that for any given energy technology,
we as a society allow someone to impose the caveat that they have
to make a profit at it. When people as a whole make a few
sacrifices and work harder to push in the same direction,
amazing achievements can be had, but that happens so seldom that
we're eternally mired in this "sorry, not cost-effective" swamp.
Nobody's willing to put forth the effort to rise above that, saying
"screw the cost, I'm going to work toward this worthwhile goal".
Especially in this country, nation of sedentary couch-potatoes.
.
Projects like windfarms and solar are seen as "deception" only
by those who can't turn a profit from it somehow. This is an
ongoing disease that *is* killing us.
.
_H*

Duh WHAT????-Xringer - I was pretty clear and said the Iraq war . I sure as heck didn't mention WW2 or any other war.

Learn to read.

Okay sir! I'll get on that right away!!

It will be profitable only thanks to the resell of my production 5 times more expensive than how much I buy it (0.55€/kWh instead of 0.11€/kWh) during the next 20 years.



WOW!! I know 3kw is not a whole lot. I have a 3.2kw system on my roof, yet it never exceeds 3.0kwac. I, however, do not live in France and I do NOT get a deal for selling back my extra kw. What I get is a "wholesale rate" for my sales, while I pay "retail" for the usage. My lowest bill this summer was for $9.00, just for the "service fee". My next bill was for 11kw, again, ultra-low. My deal was little sweeter, my panels were part of the purchase price of my house, so I saw no real up front cost of the panels.

You sir, are pretty lucky. Post your KW sometime when you get it all together, I'd love to see it.

One major meta-problem is that for any given energy technology,
we as a society allow someone to impose the caveat that they have
to make a profit at it. When people as a whole make a few
sacrifices and work harder to push in the same direction,
amazing achievements can be had, but that happens so seldom that
we're eternally mired in this "sorry, not cost-effective" swamp.
Nobody's willing to put forth the effort to rise above that, saying
"screw the cost, I'm going to work toward this worthwhile goal".
Especially in this country, nation of sedentary couch-potatoes.
.
Projects like windfarms and solar are seen as "deception" only
by those who can't turn a profit from it somehow. This is an
ongoing disease that *is* killing us.
.
_H*


Profit isn't a evil thing. If, I installed a grid connected solar PV system on my roof,
I might, eventually (2028?) be making a profit on my excess KWHs.

But, old folks like me would really like it, if the break-even point came BEFORE we went to our final resting place.. :D

Where were all the sources for this piece? Not 1 person referenced. Typical of these anti alternative energy pieces, nothing but opinion and fluff. Some how the reporter expects the reader to accept his opinion as if it is more informed that the average person.

Unfortunately the author is a political writer. Hardly a reliable source when it comes to reporting technical information on alternative energy. Not surprised there were 0 sources and a complete lack of quantitative data, with studies to back it up. Just get the masses upset with what his political party of choice is against by pulling numbers out of his arse, and calling it a job well done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

A fine example of sensationalistic reporting from an old media rag. If I was ordering this paper, about all I could do with it, is use it to line the bottom of a bird cage. Now if only I had a bird.

One major meta-problem is that for any given energy technology,
we as a society allow someone to impose the caveat that they have
to make a profit at it. When people as a whole make a few
sacrifices and work harder to push in the same direction,
amazing achievements can be had, but that happens so seldom that
we're eternally mired in this "sorry, not cost-effective" swamp.
Nobody's willing to put forth the effort to rise above that, saying
"screw the cost, I'm going to work toward this worthwhile goal".
Especially in this country, nation of sedentary couch-potatoes.
.
Projects like windfarms and solar are seen as "deception" only
by those who can't turn a profit from it somehow. This is an
ongoing disease that *is* killing us.
.
_H*

Problem? Maybe, for society.

People as a whole? Our entire American way of life goes against "people as a whole". Nobody cares about anything, as long as it does not directly effect them.

PLENTY of people work towards worthwhile goals and achieve them. The real problem comes from the fact that it takes money to get things off the ground. Even if the ideas never yeild a profit, something is going to have to be invested. You can be full of good intentions and great ideas and have the answer to save the whales and bring back the Dodo birds, but it won't get you anywhere unless you have already have a ton of money your all of your ideas are free. No money? Ok, then try to make a profit!

Your post really made me mad. Mostly from the phrase "killing us". Your going to have to give me an example of a good, free, non-profit, made from sacrifices THING is. Do you have one of these?

Wind (w/o) subsidy is running at 8 cents a kWh


in 3-5 years it will be down to 5-6 cents -


Wind is fine and economic - it will eventually form 15% - 30% of our electricity supply.

I'm confused now, but I think we were at least agreeing that
people in this country are lazy.
.
An example of fairly selfless giving is open-source software.
Profiteering there is not easy and usually centers around support
offered to those who need it. An example of mild sacrifice, or
at least what is seen as sacrifice here, is the Europeans running
around in small, not-particularly-powerful cars and not worrying
about beating the other guy out of the stoplight. True sacrifice
and common cause thinking died here in 1945, which banner I sort
of jokingly took up (http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/sotu.html) as an exercise -- but heck, the fact that
we're all in here on cleanmpg contributing to THIS common cause
is a nice example in microcosm, when you think about it. Who's
profiting by posting their experience and helpful hints into forums?
Certainly not the "me me me first" rednecks half a car length apart
in the left lane -- but I still have vague hope that they could
learn someday. Whether it hurts or not is up to them.
.
_H*

The wind isn't always blowing somewhere, but not necessarily close enough to matter -- there have been some notable heat waves where the wind turbines weren't moving. The distributed nature of wind turbines, however, does ensure that they don't all stop producing power in milliseconds like a conventional powerplant tripping off line. Instead, the power output (combined output of multiple wind turbines) typically increases or decays over hours, and is forcast ahead of time. This means that there is plenty of time to bring gas turbines on line.

This is a very significant point. Wind needs to be backed up by dispachable power, but it doesn't need much extra rotating reserves. If the variable nature of wind meant that more gas turbines had to be idling to cover at a moment's notice, and the gas turbines were being cycled from idle to high power and back, there would be very little value to the wind energy.

I read an interesting idea about VTG (vehicle to grid) recently. Instead of using VTG to cover peaks, use it to cover the rotating reserves requirement. This eliminates the regular and deep cycling of batteries, but provides a very valuable function. If a power plant drops off-line, EV's cover the loss just long enough to start the peaking units and bring them on-line.

When people as a whole make a few
sacrifices and work harder to push in the same direction,
amazing achievements can be had, but that happens so seldom that
we're eternally mired in this "sorry, not cost-effective" swamp.
Nobody's willing to put forth the effort to rise above that, saying
"screw the cost, I'm going to work toward this worthwhile goal".
Especially in this country, nation of sedentary couch-potatoes.
.
Projects like windfarms and solar are seen as "deception" only
by those who can't turn a profit from it somehow. This is an
ongoing disease that *is* killing us.
.
_H*

Hobbit: Recognize the quote at all?:


First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out... No [single] project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range... and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish... But in a very real sense, it will not be one man...if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.

An example of mild sacrifice, or
at least what is seen as sacrifice here, is the Europeans running
around in small, not-particularly-powerful cars and not worrying
about beating the other guy out of the stoplight.
_H*

Europeans have to pay higher taxes on cars with more powerful engines. So there's a reason why smaller cars are more prevalent. So if the US government is really serious about decreasing oil dependance it'd give tax breaks on any high mileage car or tax more heavily low mileage cars.

Europeans have to pay higher taxes on cars with more powerful engines. So there's a reason why smaller cars are more prevalent. So if the US government is really serious about decreasing oil dependance it'd give tax breaks on any high mileage car or tax more heavily low mileage cars.


They kinda already do this. There was the tax credit for buying a hybrid, I think that's all over now. And there is a gas guzzler tax, but it really does not include anything worthwhile. I'd say anything vehicle below 25mpg is a guzzler, but that's just me.

I don't recognize the quote specifically but I'd guess that it
has something to do with the first moon shot. Which was a good
achievement, but arguably with less actual participation from
the common person other than staying glued to the TV.
.
Dig up some of the State of the Union addresses from the early
forties [which I did as background for the 3-seconds rant], and
you'll find a somewhat different spirit, albeit all under the
unfortunate cloud of war. They're all up on wikipedia,
conveniently enough.
.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/rosie-image51.jpg
.
_H*

Okay sir! I'll get on that right away!!

Sense of humor - I like that.

Lesson One

"Dick has a dog named Spot."

Thanks,
Charlie