capricorn Posted October 3, 2011 Report Posted October 3, 2011 in Germany there has been such a increase in green(wind) power that cost is on par with coal based power sources... Green energy initiatives are dying in Germany. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,784653,00.html Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Wild Bill Posted October 4, 2011 Report Posted October 4, 2011 Green energy initiatives are dying in Germany. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,784653,00.html Once again Capricorn we see the people who can't put a new plug on a lamp for themselves convincing each other that green power works! Meanwhile, the light bulb still won't glow...at least every time they need it! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
waldo Posted October 4, 2011 Report Posted October 4, 2011 in Germany there has been such a increase in green(wind) power that cost is on par with coal based power sources... Green energy initiatives are dying in Germany. German Solar Firms Eclipsed by Chinese Rivals hey now, capricorn... that's quite the liberty you've taken interpreting your linked article... which certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with wyly's comment on wind power costs. in any case, your article speaks to a segment of the manufacturing sector, most particularly photovoltaic cells and how Germany, (along with the rest of the world), is being undercut by China... of course, your comment, (purposely or not), leaves an impression that renewable energy deployments are "dying" in Germany... which they most certainly are not! This year, Germany realized a record 20.8% of its electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar, biomass and hydro... already exceeding the aggressive 18% 2022 government target set in 2010; overall (as set in 2010), German targets for renewable energy: 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, and 60% by 2050. Bloomberg: Germany’s Green Drive Subdues 2013 Power Prices: Energy Markets A surge in renewable energy in Germany is pushing power prices for 2013 below next year’s level even as natural gas, coal and emissions rise. The country, Europe’s biggest power consumer, will build 7,000 megawatts of solar and wind capacity in 2013, 32 percent more than the additions planned for next year, according to Societe Generale SA. Germany is installing more wind turbines and solar plants to offset halted atomic production while limiting emissions from fuels such as coal and gas... Quote
waldo Posted October 4, 2011 Report Posted October 4, 2011 Meanwhile, the light bulb still won't glow...at least every time they need it! if your comment was in regards to 'peak demand' or so-called lack of guaranteed delivery associated with wind/solar, that comment reflects 'old understandings' relative to early period deployments... most certainly, as we've discussed in assorted other MLW threads, grid reform is an integral component within the overall infrastructure - handling renewable energy generation by dealing with distributed and decentralized technologies - introducing improved transmission, load management and energy storage. Quote
Bonam Posted October 4, 2011 Report Posted October 4, 2011 most certainly, as we've discussed in assorted other MLW threads, grid reform is an integral component within the overall infrastructure - handling renewable energy generation by dealing with distributed and decentralized technologies - introducing improved transmission, load management and energy storage. And, given the timeframes associated with developing and deploying the necessary power transmission and energy storage technologies, which are much further from viability than the renewable energy sources themselves, you may as well say that we will solve the clean energy problem by introducing fusion reactors. They'll be around at about the same time as the superconducting transmission lines and nanotech batteries that you look forward to. Quote
waldo Posted October 4, 2011 Report Posted October 4, 2011 And, given the timeframes associated with developing and deploying the necessary power transmission and energy storage technologies, which are much further from viability than the renewable energy sources themselves, you may as well say that we will solve the clean energy problem by introducing fusion reactors. They'll be around at about the same time as the superconducting transmission lines and nanotech batteries that you look forward to. hyperbole? Yes, we've danced around the topic of 'smart-grids' in the past... I'm always more than willing to prop-up another IEA roadmap towards the ultimate transition. For now, conventional grid adjustments in terms of spinning/non-spinning reserves is an example of a quite viable management approach to help mitigate the so-called 'intermittent' output of wind/solar. Quote
capricorn Posted October 5, 2011 Report Posted October 5, 2011 Once again Capricorn we see the people who can't put a new plug on a lamp for themselves convincing each other that green power works! Meanwhile, the light bulb still won't glow...at least every time they need it! When you peer at the underside of McGuinty's Green Energy Act, some surprising information comes to light. Our study effectively finds that the ministry was remiss in not quantifying the knock-on effects of the push for 8,400 MW of industrial wind generation plants and the 2,600 MW of solar plants that are needed to achieve the goals outlined in the LTEP.For example, the ministry did not adequately account for the fact that wind and solar require backup fossil-fuel generation to ensure no blackouts or brownouts occur. Solar will underperform when Ontario experiences cloud cover, and wind power underperforms when the wind dies down. Texas with almost 10,000 MW of installed wind capacity during a hot, dry and wind-deficient 2011 summer experienced rolling blackouts and had to restart mothballed coal plants. This provides real-time affirmation of the dangers in an Ontario system over-dependent on renewables. Our study also brings out important issues such as the predilection of wind to produce power at the wrong time. Wrong-time delivery can be costly, causing Ontario to export power at a significant cost, to build expensive transmission facilities to manage wind and solar’s unpredictability, and to spill cheap hydro. These all deplete revenues for Ontario Power Generation, thereby extending the time required before the province’s “stranded debt” can be extinguished. The Ontario Green Act promised to create 50,000 jobs. Our study concludes that each of those jobs will require a ratepayer subsidy of $200,000 annually, which effectively means that — as the LTEP reaches fruition — $10-billion will be extracted from ratepayers each year. For the average ratepayer, an annual electricity bill will escalate from $1,700 per year to $2,800 by 2015 and by the time the renewables envisaged in the LTEP are largely in place (expected in 2018) an average ratepayer will be paying in excess of $4,000 annually — well over a doubling. Put another way Ontario’s ratepayers will be paying in excess of 40¢ per kWh, placing them on a par with Denmark, which suffers the highest cost of electricity in the developed world. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/04/ontarios-power-trip-the-4000-electricity-bill/ We should not look for facts when it comes to the protection of the all mighty Environment. <sarc off> Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
waldo Posted October 6, 2011 Report Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) When you peer at the underside of McGuinty's Green Energy Act, some surprising information comes to light.http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/04/ontarios-power-trip-the-4000-electricity-bill/ We should not look for facts when it comes to the protection of the all mighty Environment. <sarc off> facts? <sarc off>? Really? Notwithstanding your linked article's referenced 'paper' can be found 'in print' as early as a Jun2011 date, I expect you're not at all curious why the National Post/Financial Post would drop this nugget on election eve - hey? I also expect you're quite content/satisfied with the type of 'facts' associated with the likes of author's Gallant/Fox ties to Energy Probe Research Foundation... that marvel of climate change denial as founded/directed by none other than Lawrence Solomon! Ya, your kinda facts, hey? in any case, this lil' ditty available from the IEEE's Power & Energy Society pretty much trashes anything your linked puff-piece article presumes to fabricate/distort concerning wind power backup, blackouts/brownouts, variability, peak demand, integration costs, predictability, etc.. Wind Power Myths Debunked (on edit: sorry... can't help myself - waldo's crack research guys report the cv of one of your linked article/paper author's tags the guy as a 'retired banker'... with time to spend researching the energy sector, to apply his banker’s common sense to analyzing the sector’s approach to the production, transmission and distribution of electricity to Ontario’s consumers... just the facts, ma'am, just the facts! <sarc off> ) Edited October 6, 2011 by waldo Quote
capricorn Posted October 6, 2011 Report Posted October 6, 2011 Good morning to you too, waldo. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Wild Bill Posted October 6, 2011 Report Posted October 6, 2011 in any case, this lil' ditty available from the IEEE's Power & Energy Society pretty much trashes anything your linked puff-piece article presumes to fabricate/distort concerning wind power backup, blackouts/brownouts, variability, peak demand, integration costs, predictability, etc.. Wind Power Myths Debunked Walod, did you read that article yourself before you linked it here? I'm the techie kid, remember? I started to read the thing and when you boil it down into plain English it doesn't seem to debunk anything as simply state it in a more positive fashion! "Can grid operators deal with changing capacity of wind" is answered by saying essentially, "We've always done this to some extent so we'll learn how to do this too!" No mention of how much that might cost! "Does wind have capacity credit?" Meaning, what about other generation if the wind dies down? Again, in high faluting language it simply says "we can calculate how much we'll need and build extra, just like Denmark has done." Well whoop-de-do! Duh! That's obvious! How much will that cost? How cost-efficient will that be? The whole article seems like that to me. Definitions, not answers. It's a sermon to the choir, in techy talk that the authors expect will go over most of the audience's head and that most of the audience WANTS to agree with them anyhow! I really think that if YOU were so inclined you could tear that cite to pieces! This is not up to your usual standards. I think you should read it again or find a better one. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
TimG Posted October 6, 2011 Report Posted October 6, 2011 Walod, did you read that article yourself before you linked it here? I'm the techie kid, remember? I started to read the thing and when you boil it down into plain English it doesn't seem to debunk anything as simply state it in a more positive fashion!I read the article too and I got exactly the same impression. They don't refute anything - they only confirm that the critics are right but try to put a positive spin on it!Note that the authors are all renewable energy promoters (e.g. NREL). Quote
waldo Posted October 7, 2011 Report Posted October 7, 2011 ... this lil' ditty available from the IEEE's Power & Energy Society - Wind Power Myths Debunked I really think that if YOU were so inclined you could tear that cite to pieces! This is not up to your usual standards. I think you should read it again or find a better one. I'm quite content with my linked article as it clearly identifies and speaks to the typical myths being perpetuated by the anti-renewable crew - those like TimG... if you felt the article lacking, there is no shortage of references within the article's "For Further Reading" section; most particularly: - the IEA Design and operation of power systems with large amounts of wind power... or - the German Energy Agencies dena Grid study - Planning of the Grid Integration of Wind Energy in Germany Onshore and Offshore up to the Year 2020... or - the UK Energy Centre's, The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency... or - the peer-reviewed paper, A review of different methodologies used for calculation of wind power capacity credit (abstract only... I can't find a full copy outside the IEEE membership/paywall)... etc. Quote
waldo Posted October 7, 2011 Report Posted October 7, 2011 ... this lil' ditty available from the IEEE's Power & Energy Society - Wind Power Myths Debunked(on edit: sorry... can't help myself - waldo's crack research guys report the cv of one of your linked article/paper author's tags the guy as a 'retired banker'... with time to spend researching the energy sector, to apply his banker’s common sense to analyzing the sector’s approach to the production, transmission and distribution of electricity to Ontario’s consumers... Note that the authors are all renewable energy promoters (e.g. NREL). uhhh... no... in contrast to your favoured article's author associations with the climate denial EPRF organization, with your favoured article's "retired banker author... they guy described as having the time available to apply his banker's common sense" , in regards to my linked article, "Wind Power Myths Debunked": - three of the authors are from NREL - that would be U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory - one of the authors is also from the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science - Lawrence Berkeley National Lab - one of the authors is also from General Electric Energy - Wind Services - one of the authors is from Exeter Associates - one of the authors is from VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland - one of the authors is an academic professor at the School of Electrical, Electronic and Mechanical Engineering of University College Dublin, in Ireland - one of the authors is an academic professor at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology - one of the authors is a private consultant as profiled on the U.S. Department of Energy website Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 7, 2011 Report Posted October 7, 2011 I'm quite content with my linked article as it clearly identifies and speaks to the typical myths being perpetuated by the anti-renewable crew - those like TimG... if you felt the article lacking, there is no shortage of references within the article's "For Further Reading" section; most particularly: - the IEA Design and operation of power systems with large amounts of wind power... or - the German Energy Agencies dena Grid study - Planning of the Grid Integration of Wind Energy in Germany Onshore and Offshore up to the Year 2020... or - the UK Energy Centre's, The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency... or - the peer-reviewed paper, A review of different methodologies used for calculation of wind power capacity credit (abstract only... I can't find a full copy outside the IEEE membership/paywall)... etc. Sorry Waldo but I just don't have time to peruse the footnotes of an article to prove a point that the cite couldn't do for itself! I have amplifiers to fix for guitarists, a tower for a ham radio antenna to erect, tons of housework and to be honest, I'm just too old and fat to get it all done! To ask me to spend time proving your cite is more than I can spare. The cite can prove itself or not, as far as I care. If I have any time left I'll be out at a local blues bar listening to my customers play. If you want to drop around sometime I'll buy you a beer! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
waldo Posted October 7, 2011 Report Posted October 7, 2011 no problem WB - I appreciate your described limited time only affords you the opportunity to selectively cull your assessment around your predisposed leaning. Even though I thought your most generalized and non-specific assessment, in itself, quite lacking and self-serving, I didn't state as much... instead, in the spirit of your many previous whinefests exhibiting your ultra-sensitivity, I took the time to flush out a few referenced links for you. Clearly, my efforts to support your want for additional information sources was not well received... I don't expect I'll make the same mistake with you going forward. Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 7, 2011 Report Posted October 7, 2011 no problem WB - I appreciate your described limited time only affords you the opportunity to selectively cull your assessment around your predisposed leaning. Even though I thought your most generalized and non-specific assessment, in itself, quite lacking and self-serving, I didn't state as much... instead, in the spirit of your many previous whinefests exhibiting your ultra-sensitivity, I took the time to flush out a few referenced links for you. Clearly, my efforts to support your want for additional information sources was not well received... I don't expect I'll make the same mistake with you going forward. Now don't get all testy! I don't mind looking at a cite. I just feel that if it was someone else's cite then it's someone else's point. Therefore, if you chose a cite that doesn't clearly support your point then that was your fault, not mine. The onus of proof was on YOU! I shouldn't be expected to spend my precious time researching a poor cite of YOURS! Hell, you would have jumped on me fast enough for a poor point and certainly refused to research all its footnotes! Justifiably so! I wouldn't expect YOU to waste your time proving MY premises! I'm still willing to buy you a beer, as long as you don't nitpick overly long about the brand! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
capricorn Posted October 8, 2011 Report Posted October 8, 2011 Such technologies will be used and implemented when they're worthwhile. Day after we're reading about green energy projects that rely heavily on taxpayer subsidies being shelved by western countries. Here's a recent one from the UK. Scottish Power is understood to have pulled the plug on a major green energy scheme at Longannet power station, Fife, close to the Firth of Forth.The threatened scrapping comes amid growing concern that David Cameron and George Osborne want to scale back the green agenda on the grounds that low carbon technology, such as carbon capture storage (CCS) and offshore wind power, cost too much in a time of austerity. The chancellor told the Conservative conference this week that if he had his way the UK would cut "carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe". Scottish Power and its partners Shell and the National Grid have just completed a detailed study of the Longannet scheme. They are concerned about its commercial viability without more public backing.The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) had promised £1bn but the developers are understood to be saying they cannot proceed unless more money is provided to enable them to trial a scheme which involves burying carbon emissions in the North Sea. Both sides insist "talks are ongoing" but well-placed industry and political sources say the process is "pretty much over" and a statement is expected shortly. --- Charles Hendry, the energy minister, said in May that Longannet and other CCS schemes in the UK showed it was "at the cutting edge of the low carbon agenda." But an industrialist in the department told the Guardian ministers were now privately questioning renewable power and other schemes that involved substantial public subsidies. Ministers have come under sustained lobbying from traditional power companies and energy intensive manufacturers to concentrate on lower priced, higher carbon fuels such as gas. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/06/carbon-energy-green-agenda?newsfeed=true Governments bent on making their jurisdiction at the cutting edge of renewable and green energy are cash cows for energy companies. It's a lot easier for these companies to turn to government for subsidies than it is to develop their products at their own expense. McGuinty will have to seriously re-think the direction and cost of his green energy experiments. He no longer has a 70 seat majority to push his green agenda. Austerity is the key word of the day. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
The_Squid Posted October 8, 2011 Report Posted October 8, 2011 (edited) Hydro projects weren't subsidized by the taxpayer?? Of course they were. Most large dam projects were gov't funded. Nuclear power is heavily subsidized. Natural gas plants are heavily subsidized. The argument that "green energy" isn't viable because it is subsidized is silly. BC is way behind the Washingto and Oregon in terms of wind power. Ironic considering people in Canada tend to think of BC as an Eco-friendly place compared to the USA. http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/windpower.asp Edited October 8, 2011 by The_Squid Quote
TimG Posted October 8, 2011 Report Posted October 8, 2011 (edited) The argument that "green energy" isn't viable because it is subsidized is silly. Yes it is when you look at the subsidies per kWh produced. Nuclear power not recieved such outrageous subsidies since it was an R&D project in the 50s. Dams also do not technically need subsidies - they could be financed privately if governments let them. Typically governments want to keep a monopoly on the revenue from a limited public resource so they run them.If energy prices ever rise to the point where wind and solar are viable without subsidies then we will be looking at a global economic meltdown. Edited October 8, 2011 by TimG Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 8, 2011 Report Posted October 8, 2011 Hydro projects weren't subsidized by the taxpayer?? Of course they were. Most large dam projects were gov't funded. Nuclear power is heavily subsidized. Natural gas plants are heavily subsidized. The argument that "green energy" isn't viable because it is subsidized is silly. BC is way behind the Washingto and Oregon in terms of wind power. Ironic considering people in Canada tend to think of BC as an Eco-friendly place compared to the USA. http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/windpower.asp There's a big difference between funding the construction as a one-time deal and subsidizing the PRODUCT forever! Your Dad might help you with the cost of a car but he surely would balk at paying 80% of the gas for it, for the life of the vehicle! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
waldo Posted October 8, 2011 Report Posted October 8, 2011 The argument that "green energy" isn't viable because it is subsidized is silly.Yes it is when you look at the subsidies per kWh produced. If energy prices ever rise to the point where wind and solar are viable without subsidies then we will be looking at a global economic meltdown. and you persist in continuing to reference the irrelevant (to this discussion point) 'per kWh produced' figure... you have been repeatedly schooled over your improper use and continued reference to that metric - and yet you persist... again, and again, and again! Here, as follows, a few representative MLW posts you continue to ignore, while also continuing to ignore the direct question/challenge to you as to why 'BigOil' continues/needs to receive the most outrageous level of subsidy it receives today - just answer the question/challenge... just answer it. ... Again, the only reason the subsidy per unit of energy figure for BigOil is so low ... is because so much of it is produced. And on that point alone, you weasel your way around the actual expenditure numbers. Since you have truly assumed the MLW position as head shill for Big Oil, perhaps you might answer the question you keep avoiding. Just why does BigOil continue to need subsidies... particularly in the face of year over year record profits? Just answer the question... No, per unit of energy tells you more about how mature a technology is. That number starts fairly high and goes down as an industry matures and scale of production increases. You would expect those numbers to be high for wind and solar because they are very young technologies in terms of considerable capital investment. What SHOULD really bother you is that industries that have already been in full scale operation for many decades are STILL recieving most the energy subsidy dollars. And they have been getting that money for decades. We have spent almost NOTHING comparatively on renewables. You claim you dont support subsidies except for during the intial R&D and Rollout phase which is where wind and solar are at. But you ignore the fact that industries that have already been up and running on a large scale for more than half a century are getting the bulk of the subsidies. Then you try to fall back on the whole narrative about PER UNITS but thats bogus because if you only support subsidies during the R&D phase then OF COURSE THE FOCKIN UNITS ARE GOING TO COST MORE. Initial r&d subsidies often dont yield any units at all! If you only believe emerging technologies should get subsidies then why the hell would you even bring up PER UNIT costs as an excuse for a well established industry getting most of the subsidies? Quote
Shady Posted October 8, 2011 Report Posted October 8, 2011 Looks like waldo is still a big fan of pissing away peoples hard earned tax money for ideological purposes. I wish he'd piss away his own instead. But like most alarmists, they're more interested in spending and wasting everyone elses money first. Quote
TimG Posted October 8, 2011 Report Posted October 8, 2011 (edited) and you persist in continuing to reference the irrelevant (to this discussion point) 'per kWh produced' figureYou don't like it cause it illustrates how rediculous it is to be subsidizing wind and solar. Technologies that are not mature are not deployed widely so the total costs of the subsidy are not large even if they are high per kWh. Once a technology starts being deployed widely it is meets the definition a mature technology that the total costs of the subsidy skyrocket. It really does not make a difference that the technology continues to improve. Cars today are cheaper (in real terms) and more efficient that cars produced 30 or 60 years ago but that does not mean the automobile was not a "mature" technology 60 years ago.Your arguments are basically self serving garbage invented to justify spending money on stuff that suits your green religion. If you think renewable power is so you great - you pay for it. Leave the rest of us out of the scam. Edited October 8, 2011 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted October 9, 2011 Report Posted October 9, 2011 no - per the last quote I just replayed for you from MLW member dre... schooling you big time - you simply cling to that meaningless per/kWh metric because it allows you to falsely compare fossil-fuel subsidies to those for renewable options... it's simply a metric that reflects upon the maturity of fossil-fuels and hence, how much of it is produced. and, of course, you continue to ignore the direct question/challenge to you as to why fossil-fuels should continue to receive subsidies, notwithstanding the disproportionate amount of fossil-fuel subsidies as compared to those for renewable alternatives. Just answer the question TimG... just answer the question - is there a problem? Bloomberg New Energy Finance: Fossil fuel subsidies are 10 times those of renewables ... International Energy Agency (IEA) - $557bn was spent by governments during 2008 to subsidize the fossil fuel industry Quote
TimG Posted October 9, 2011 Report Posted October 9, 2011 and, of course, you continue to ignore the direct question/challenge to you as to why fossil-fuels should continue to receive subsidiesI have always said the real subsidies to fossil fuels should be eliminated but they are so small when measured per kWh they will have no effect on consumption. The problem is you insist on claiming that many legimate tax deductions are "subsidies" and are looking to use the tax code to penalize fossil fuels. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.