Windmills = jobs lost

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tempest,
so wind, that according to your previous statements, can't achieve anything worthwhile, in terms of power generation is going to shut down nukes because of their market impact ?

Give me a break, you can't have both sides of the same argument.

BTW, you never bothered to answer the "finite" nuclear fuel issues...and ultimately what we use when we've used everything up
 
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/

"The world currently uses 67,000 tons of mined uranium a year. At current usage, this is equal to about seventy years of supply. The World Nuclear Association says demand has remained relatively steady because of efficiency improvements, and it is projected to grow “only slightly” through 2010. However, more efficient nuclear reactors, such as “fast-reactor” technology could lengthen those supplies by more than two thousand years."


These numbers are based only on currently known reserves. I think the fears of running out of nuclear fuel are a bit overblown.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
so wind, that according to your previous statements, can't achieve anything worthwhile, in terms of power generation is going to shut down nukes because of their market impact ?

Give me a break, you can't have both sides of the same argument.

If you have an intermittent source of power (wind) that competes with reliable sources (nuke, coal) at about half the time, then that competition reduces the revenue of the reliable sources. Of course, when there is no wind, there is need for those reliable sources to ramp up. If revenues are reduced by the wind farms, there is less impetus to build reliable sources.

Note that the article says subsidized wind farms. If these are viable without gov. help, I'm all for them.
 
I think that the article is flawed.

The thing that REALLY reduces the profitability of "baseload" plant is peaking Gas Turbines...they shave the peaks, which is where 40-60% of the annual profit used to be.
 
Weekly market updates at work, plus watching my company's (and the others in the state) have shown that the peaks are still there, but the $10,000/MWHr that used to be paid on those peaks is now down to $100...due to the GTs being brought in for (literally) a couple hours a day to cream the peaks.

One of the traditionally baseload companies is installing 600plus MW of simple cycle GTs, purely for peak harvesting in a market that has made coal not very profitable at all.
 
Hi,
Shannow - On a recent Euro trip that took in thousands of kms over Sweden, Denmark and Germany the most dominant thing for me was the incredible number of windmills in use. The same applies in parts of England and Spain

They are even visible from Nyhavn in the centre of Copenhagen
 
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Shannow - On a recent Euro trip that took in thousands of kms over Sweden, Denmark and Germany the most dominant thing for me was the incredible number of windmills in use. The same applies in parts of England and Spain

They are even visible from Nyhavn in the centre of Copenhagen



Doug,
How do feel about seeing windmills over the country side in Europe? There are several windmill farms here in Illinois now, and as time goes on I'm sure there will be more coming along. Takes away from the from the view of the fertile plain IMO.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Shannow - On a recent Euro trip that took in thousands of kms over Sweden, Denmark and Germany the most dominant thing for me was the incredible number of windmills in use. The same applies in parts of England and Spain

They are even visible from Nyhavn in the centre of Copenhagen


Wasting money on windmills may be part of the reason their economies are waiting for exports to the US to revive them.
 
Hi,
labman - Is that the reason why GM imploded (after 40 years or so of strife) along with most of your Banks etc too?

Wind sure saves them from becoming totally dependent on the black liquid or the hard black stuff from below ground level

We live very well here without total exports to NA - much of Europe does too!

If we wait too long for NA to revive we may fall into a bigger hole too - one lasting for decades - lets get on with life!!
 
Europe would implode if the Russian's shut off the piplines. They are lucky Russia needs the cash as bad as Europe needs gas.

Even with that, the German energy company EON has a very poor opinion of wind. It's very interesting that most places that have invested heavily into wind have nothing but problems with it.

Quote:
Denmark is the pioneer of wind power. As the greens like to point out, wind accounts for about 18 per cent of Danish electricity production. Yet according to Politiken, one of Copenhagen’s leading newspapers, wind energy accounted for as little as 1.7% of Denmark’s total energy demand in 1999. The ridiculous situation now exists in Denmark where energy production capacity is now theoretically three times higher than actual-peak demand. “Theoretical” is the operative term here, because Denmark’s wind generators only operate at full capacity on the one or two days a month when the wind is within acceptable range — too weak and little power is generated, too strong and turbines are shut down. At the end of the day, you can't ask mother nature to crank up the wind to match demand.

The Danes pay some of the highest prices for electricity in the world. They pay something like 1.6 times the price for electricity that Britons do. This claim is backed up by recent investigation by the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Administration (NVE), who have studied the Danish wind experiment and concluded that wind energy was “dearly bought.” According to the NVE, the Danish wind experiment has suffered from massive and unrestrained funding, serious environmental effects, insufficient energy production, and high production costs amongst other negative aspects.

Due to a recent change of government, the Danes are now toning down their commitment to the wind industry. This is due to wind generations unreliability as well as crippling cost. A lead editorial of Jyllandsposten (Denmark’s most popular newspaper) stated that in the absence of government subsidies, no more sea-based wind farms will be built.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/755804/posts
 
Tempest,
citing the Danes too much wind, or not enough...somebody has an agenda.

Look at the US electricity system, it's spread all over the country, allowing it to be generated anywhere...too windy one spot, just right somewhere else.

How many time zones is the AM and PM peak spread across ?
 
Quote:
In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs."

Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.

A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, "Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?," July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark's wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only 1.7% of Denmark's total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported, this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures. Click here for information about electricity use in wind turbines.) In Weekendavisen (Nov. 4, 2005), Frede Vestergaard reported that Denmark as a whole exported 70.3% of its wind production in 2004.

Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported more electricity than they exported. And added to the Danish electric bill are the subsidies that support the private companies building the wind towers. Danish electricity costs for the consumer are the highest in Europe.

http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html

Quote:
Look at the US electricity system, it's spread all over the country, allowing it to be generated anywhere...too windy one spot, just right somewhere else.

How many time zones is the AM and PM peak spread across ?

Oh I understand the theory, but the fact that they are not wide spread in spite of significant subsidies tells me the theory has a big hole in it someplace. The fact that Shell is getting out of the biz is another clue.

Also, the fact that GE needs special "help" to make their green projects work is further evidence.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Do you agree that fossil fuels are finite ?

I think it probable but I don't think it is set in stone as of yet. There were predictions in the 1930's that we would be out of oil in the 1950's so I take predictions with a truck load of salt.

Let's assume that it is. The last estimate by our gov. that I saw said that fossil fuel will account for ~85% of the globes power in 2030, which is about where it is now. There is at least several more decades of oil supply out there (and about 200 years worth of coal). Should we not use it while improving other technology?

I think wasting money on economically unviable technology is a waste of resources. The technology IS advancing everyday, so why should we sink trillions into tens of thousands of early tech wind mills when there is a much cheaper energy source?
 
80 to 200 years is really far reaching thinking for a species which has been here for thousands (if not 10s of thousands) of years.

Full steam ahead, and bedamned at the consequences, as the market will fix it.
 
Hi,
Tempest - Citing Britain and its electricty costs is like citing the US and its dependencey on ME oil! Both have huge residual costs like a war or two in the ME and in the case of Britain a cost burden nobody wants to talk about - de-commissioning old and potentially (and progresively) dangerous Nuclear Power Plants!

Energy - a huge and complex issue for the World to face

In the case of OZ we have wind and sun - transmssion costs make much of these resources unusable where it is needed. Keep supply of food and power local is a cry that in coming years will reach a loud holler IMO

There will be an ever increasing call for wind and sun to become reliable power sources in our remote communities. Successive OZ Govts have until recently forgotton about solar water heating in our States that have sufficient sunlight for all round use. I have it on my buildings and have used this reliable power source for nearly two decades. It only became mandatory on new homes etc. in this Sate during the last few months - what a waste! No doubt a "Yes Minister" issue for those that know the meaning!!!

In the case of those Countries already using wind and solar power one must remember that it is an emerging source. Its efficiency will only get better
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom