The bad news about windfarms.... 14

[moltenmetal]

Thank you globi5 for generating a breath of fresh air here!

As to the economics, until there's a tipping charge for the disposal of atmospheric pollutants, there's no level playing field amongst energy sources, and the only reason people will make the new investments is if they're willing to gamble on subsidy. If the tipping charge remains at zero, fossil fuels WIN, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future until shortage drives up the prices of the source fuels to levels far higher than present ones. Shale gas has fundamentally altered the equation.

What I want to see is truly fully-burdened energy pricing, so consumers get the full market feedback signal related to their behaviour and hence have a reason to change it. A dollar invested to reduce consumption and a dollar invested to generate new production must both bear the same fruit. Right now, government subsidy is focused primarily on generation. All forms of generation have environmental impact.

 

[BigInch]

If everything boiled down to a simple economic decision, dollars and interest rates, how many designer names, including Penzoil, do you think would survive. The fate of the world, or the wellbeing of virtually anything, except their own shareholders desires cannot be left down to investors making decisions based only on cost and interest rates. When will that become well understood. As badly as many of you would like to believe, capitalism does not have the answer to anything, except the way to make more money. If that is not your objective, you're using the wrong tools.



Let your acquaintances be many, but your advisors one in a thousand’ ... Book of Ecclesiasticus

 

[CastMetal]

I think we can all acknowledge that these issues involve more factors (technical, economic, political, sociological, psychological) than any one person can truly fully grasp and measure, but what is the point of these discussions if not to temper one another's ardent beliefs with contrasting ideas?

I think belittling one idea for being narrow sighted does little good as we all know a combination of factors will be involved in the final outcome good, bad, or indifferent.

Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations

 

[cranky108]

What I see is that the banker wants to see a return on investment, and economics play a part.

The consumer wants things that they perceve make there lives better, efficent or not.

The utility engineer wants power production that can dependibly be scheduled, at a cost that can be sold to the consumer.
A small amount of wind, or solar can reasonably be mixed into the typical fluxauations of consumer load.
However, a large amount of any energy source must be dependibaly scheduled to follow the customer needs. Wind isen't there. Solar is better, but is still lacking.
What happens with a large changing energy source on the grid is it incerases the cost and maintenance of the plants that have to move up and down to compliment it. The wind people don't get that, and are not addressing that concern.

The wind people are also not doing the engineering development in modeling there designs to work with the power grid. It is inaccurate to model a 150 MW wind farm as a syncronous generator, because the wind manufacturer has not developed a model for his machines.

 

[owg]

Visitor from another planet - "How do you decide where to put the windmills?"
Turbine Planner - "We locate them where the wind is best."
Visitor - "What is the reason for the windmills?"
Planner - "We are expecting climate change."
Visitor - "So how do you know the wind won't change?"
Planner - "Oops!"

Just kidding!

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[moltenmetal]

BigInch said: "The fate of the world, or the wellbeing of virtually anything, except their own shareholders desires, cannot be left down to investors making decisions based only on cost and interest rates....capitalism doesn't have the answer to anything, aside from how to make more money."

Couldn't agree with you more on those points!

We cannot and indeed SHOULD not expect the shareholders of companies (i.e. the public) to know enough to care about anything those companies do in the course of making money for us. That's what we shareholders hire management to do for us- and why we need government to be there to set limits via regulation on what constitutes the public interest, and provide police, investigators, regulatory bodies and of course courts and jails to house the ones who stray across the line of the public interest in the pursuit of making money. Fallible human institutions all, granted.

BigInch also said " If that (i.e. making more money) is not your objective, you're using the wrong tools."

Sorry, I don't quite agree with you there. Economics are a reality that cannot be ignored.

Democratic governments have fundamentally only two tools which allow them to intervene in the capitalist marketplace for what their electorate consider to be the public good: regulation, and taxation. They can, do and indeed MUST use those tools to keep the system stable and to avoid problems created by the market. Problems, say, like a disconnect between the costs of energy consumption and who pays those costs.

People who are rich may choose to buy "virtuous" energy- I guess that's what you meant by your Pennzoil example? Otherwise it's lost on me. But if we count on this alone, failure will be the predictable result.

My point is simply this: we cannot count on people's virtue alone to do what is in the public interest in environmental matters or anything else. In the energy field, we cannot AFFORD to promote virtue through subsidy unless we also punish "vice" via taxation. Subsidy distorts the market and confuses shareholders who are choosing what to invest in, and managers of companies who are trying to make the right decisions on their behalf. Subsidy also allows government to play favourites based on lobbying efforts and forces them to bet on market winners and losers.

Given a choice between subsidy for renewables and taxation of fossil fuels, the latter is far more appealing and more likely to yield the necessary levels of the following three highly desirable things:

1) Investment in conservation and energy efficiency (since higher prices generate a payback for the necessary investments aside from merely a feeling of self-satisfaction for doing the right thing)

2) Investment in new technologies on the basis of their technical merit, in this case their ability to generate NET electrical energy over their lifecycle without generating matching greenhouse gas emissions, and

3) Reduction in our reliance on finite, increasingly environmentally costly fossil fuels- fuels that have higher value long-term uses to society as chemical feedstocks rather than merley as a source of energy. Think it's hard to make transport fuels from biomass? Try making the millions of OTHER compounds we currently depend on which are sourced from oil, gas or coal tar! While it's possible, making transport fuels is childsplay in comparison.

 

[globi5]

As I said before: The utilities already have to deal with a much larger variable demand anyway. Dealing with a variable and very predictable wind power fraction is not an issue, besides wind turbines can always reduce their power output if the grid could not handle it.

http://awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=7942

And modern wind turbines provide active and reactive power control:

http://www.wind-energy-market.com/e...lants/details/details/bp/vestas-v100-18-mw-3/

And so do even relatively small PV-inverters:

http://www.sma.de/en/products/solar...l-10000tl-11000tl-reactive-power-control.html

Whether renewables are a financial success is a simple question of the frame conditions.
In fact renewable energies and weatherization of buildings have attracted lots of private investors (incl. bankers) worldwide - but of course, mostly in regions where favorable frame conditions do exist.

The reason why Americans primarily buy Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado's (as opposed to VW Golf's and Ford Fiesta's - the 2 best selling cars in Europe) and thus worsen the US trade deficit and increase the dependence on imported resources is not because Americans have a special need for these cars and Europeans do not: It's because the US as opposed to Europe has set frame conditions which include an almost missing gas tax and tax deductions for such vehicles.

The reason why the US has pricey stealth bombers and Europe does not is also because of frame conditions set by the government.
Having built $2 billion stealth bomber's a piece is not a better win-win-situation than reducing the trade deficit and the dependence on imported fuels and the dependence on imported technology.

Thanks to the fact that Germany introduced feed-in-tariffs almost 20 years ago, Germany not only reduced its dependence on imported fuels and created many jobs - but German wind turbine manufacturers also export over 80% of the wind turbines (stealth bombers on the other hand could not even be exported, even if there was any significant market for it).
Even the German PV-industry not only generated thousands of new jobs - it actually pays more taxes than it indirectly receives in feed-in tariffs.
The reason why Germany exports more than the US (despite of the weak USD and being much smaller than the US) and Japan is also because Germany has set different frame conditions.

 

[cranky108]

So your answer to wind power verability is "deal with it. We in wind power don't have any obiligation". Is that right?

Wrong. This issue is simply that the wind industry isen't willing to fix or pay for the problems they cause. It is just to easy to pass those issue off on everybody else (just like the CO2 you poport to avoid).
Bottom line is the wind industry is no better that the coal industry. They are just as much free loaders as the polluters they claim to be better than.

So next time you claim to be avoiding polution, look at the electrical polution you are placing on the grid.

And while we are on the topic, why don't wind providers connect into the local utilities generation ACE, and see if they can make the grade required of other generation.

 

[globi5]

Why don't you just read the facts I provided instead of just randomly bad mouthing renewables and efficiency measures with false accusations?

By the way, my household is at 300 kWh per year and person electric energy consumption and we are not missing out on any comfort (granted we don't get our heating and hot water needs from electric energy).
The average US household is at 3800 kWh per year and person. Most people are completely unaware what efficient appliances can do.

 

[moltenmetal]

globi5: what you're calling "frame conditions" are exactly what I'm talking about: government regulation and taxation in the public interest. But it matters greatly whether the "frame conditions" are funded out of general revenue, and hence have to compete with schools and hospitals for public resources, or are self-funded (i.e. funded by directed taxation). I know that the latter is a fool's paradise to some folks, but there are examples where this does work.

A fundamental principle that should apply in any energy system is a kWh of consumption AVOIDED has to be worth at LEAST a kWh provided by new generation capacity. All forms of energy production have some environmental impact.

To further this point: we can receive a feed-in tarrif to put up to 200 kW of PV panels on our roof, with a guaranteed subsidy (an absurd ~ $0.60/kWh)on the produced power for 20 years. Even with the "local content" requirements, forcing us to buy panels and inverters from local suppliers charging 2-3x the world market rate for these products, it'll still generate a tidy net revenue stream for us, so we're likely to do it (probably not all 200 kW, but at least 20 kW or so).

Unfortunately, nobody will pay us anything to hunt down and kill the 30 kW our building draws when it is unoccupied, and at the nominal local rate of $0.04/kWh (even less in the wee hours of the morning), the payback on any investment we make to kill that parasitic load will be infinite. We may do this out of the goodness of our own environmental consciences, but by doing so we would be at odds with the purely financial interests of our shareholders (which in this case are, for the most part, the same people).

Fighting the market is pointless. The market needs to be altered.

 

[globi5]

I also believe that increasing tax on energy and reduce tax on work would be better than any subsidies. (Where I live I pay about 3 times as much on gas and half on income tax compared to a person living in the US and I certainly prefer these tax-rates).

However, feed-in tariffs are normally paid by the rate payers and not by the tax payer (and it should always be this way, since this also incentivizes energy conservation and the purchase of efficient appliances).
Since feed-in tariffs are paid by rate payers (and large electric consumers which actually depend on affordable electricity can be excluded) is also why in Germany the tax burden is being reduced thanks to the feed-in tariffs.
(In short: The feed-in tariffs created business which created jobs and which pay taxes. In addition, feed-in tariffs do reduce spot-market electric prices which does help industries which really depend on low electricity prices.)

Nevertheless, it's important that feed-in tariffs are constantly adapted. The feed-in tariffs for PV in Germany start meanwhile at 21.11 cents/kWh (almost half of what they were 4 years ago) and will drop below 20 cents/kWh by July:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz

 

[cranky108]

Read the facts? Bad mouthing renewables?

If you would present facts that refute what I have said, or did you not read my post.

I have nothing bad to say about renewables, just bad things to say about renewable operators, and developers. They won't spend the money to rectify the problems they create.

The verability problem with wind is a problem for the grid operators, and the wind developers won't fix the problem they have created.

 

[GregLocock]

"my household is at 300 kWh per year "

hmm, 50W on average. No fridge. No freezer. No toaster or microwave. One laptop. One LED light.

I suppose it is possible, but colour me sceptical.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[lacajun]

I am skeptical about anything related to AGW, Green Energy, Smart Grid, etc. because the science behind it has been politicized. Al Gore stands to make billions overnight on the frenzy he fabricated over AGW. That makes me suspicious of his intentions. Whenever anyone tries to manipulate me through fear, I become suspicious of them.

If we have higher energy prices through taxation, we will be hurting the poor. That is unconscionable.

And since when did the US government have the responsibility to tell me what kind of light bulbs to buy, where to get energy, what appliances to buy, etc.? Those are my decisions based upon the circumstances of my life, which the US, local, and state governments are clueless about.

I also believe many in the public know when they are paying too much for utilities just as I do. I suspect most people want to keep as much of their money in their pockets as possible. I also suspect most people want to enjoy modern conveniences throughout their lives w/out paying an arm and a leg for them. Most of us will become slaves to convenience, if we can afford it. We all seek the path of least resistance. There are some who believe our primary mode of transportation should be bicycles. How does that help a single mother, who can only afford to live 15 miles from the nearest town with a doctor, grocery store, etc.?

I live pretty close to the bone as it is because I grew up in poverty and have no desire to return to it. Mother was a Depression Era child and she wasted as little as absolutely possible. Those lessons stuck. For anyone to ass-u-me they know what's best for the individual is sheer arrogance. We have far too many people with the case of the long proboscis, who really need to give themselves a long, hard gaze in the mirror in the effort of self-examination.

When I have looked into numbers in the past, the amount of renewables is a drop in the bucket of what we use daily in the US and we are spending ourselves crazy to do it. I don't think that's too smart. We are debt laden and pay billions daily just to service the interest on our debt. We have to stop spending money we don't have.

A contractor recently told me he spent $34,000US installing PV on his home. Who can afford that? He didn't pay the full amount because he got "rebates" totaling $33,000US. Where do those rebates come from? Who ultimately pays for his new energy source? Why is that morally superior?

I had a discussion with an engineer in the utility industry recently who claimed his company was providing incentives to install renewables, purchase energy efficient appliances, etc. He disagreed with me that those were really being paid by the US government. Lo and behold that ended recently because the government was not going to pay the utility company any longer to incentivize its customers to do all that stuff. Where does government get its money?

The media implies we import a lot of Mid East oil. We import some but the bulk we import from the Western Hemisphere and primarily Canada. We also sell some of ours on the global market. I think this is an indicator of how much misinformation is told about energy. I think people want to do the right thing but with so much of the energy debate, CO2, etc. being politicized, they don't know what to believe.

 

[IRstuff]

Directly from from US Energy Information Adminstration:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html

we imported 7.8 million barrels per day in February, of which, only 2.2 million was from Canada.

Of the remainder, fully 72% come from OPEC member countries, which is dominated primarily by Middle East, Arab, or African countries. This means that our imported oil prices are directly driven by the production set by OPEC, and the prices resulting therefrom.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[cranky108]

And just how much of that oil went into the production of electricity? Very little. So wind energy will not reduce the import of oil by very much.

Has anyone noticed how much coal we are exporting to China?
We spend our money on wind, and they buy our unused coal. Are we really saving the planet, or just making GE rich?

 

[lacajun]

we imported 7.8 million barrels per day in February, of which, only 2.2 million was from Canada.

That's about 30%, which is what I remembered from the last few years. The last time I tracked this, if memory serves, we imported roughly 12-15% from the Middle East. If you listen to the media, they imply we import all of our crude imports from the Middle East.

This is one man's take on pricing of crude oil. WRTG

I've read similar positions on the price, too, which state OPEC really doesn't have much power to control price. Since it is a global commodity, I suspect the price is something not easily controlled.

 

[IRstuff]

As I said in my post, 72%, which is almost all of the remainder, come from OPEC countries:

Algeria Africa
Angola Africa
Ecuador South America
Iran Middle East
Iraq Middle East
Kuwait Middle East
Libya Africa
Nigeria Africa
Qatar Middle East
Saudi Arabia Middle East
United Arab Emirates Middle East
Venezuela South America

Clearly, OPEC, and hence, the bulk of our oil, is controlled by Middle East countries, and certainly, Venezuela is no friend of the US. And while Libya is not technically in the Middle East, they are both Arab and definitely aligned against the US.

Saudi Arabia has been keeping up the base price for decades. Despite decades of cajoling by the US, Saudi Arabia continues to its limit production, which is the typical method a cartel uses to control prices, WRTG not withstanding.

There is no incentive for anyone to undercut prices in anything that the western world depends on strategically, particularly since we continue to pay for the same amount of oil regardless of whether the price is at $50/bbl or $120/bbl and since it's still a limited resource which becomes useless as a leverage if the Saudis pump themselves dry. This means that the prices are, in effect, controlled.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[cranky108]

Can we use wind pumps in the US to extract oil from North America?

It's a win-win, as it uses renewable energy to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Or even solar oil pumps.

 

[IRstuff]

Yeah, sure, good luck with that.

We consume about 20 million bbl/day. We have about 21 billion bbl of proven reserves. That's 2.87 yrs of independence. We'll then be 100% dependent on foreign oil after that.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize