FReepmail me to get on or off
Climate Research News
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Posted on 02/10/2009 12:59:29 PM PST by paulycy
CLIMATE CHANGE PARADOX
Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals
By Anselm Waldermann
Despite Europe's boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram. Now, even the Green Party is taking a new look at the issue -- as shown in e-mails obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE.
Germany's renewable energy companies are a tremendous success story. Roughly 15 percent of the country's electricity comes from solar, wind or biomass facilities, almost 250,000 jobs have been created and the net worth of the business is €35 billion per year.
But there's a catch: The climate hasn't in fact profited from these developments. As astonishing as it may sound, the new wind turbines and solar cells haven't prohibited the emission of even a single gram of CO2.
Even more surprising, the European Union's own climate change policies, touted as the most progressive in the world, are to blame. The EU-wide emissions trading system determines the total amount of CO2 that can be emitted by power companies and industries. And this amount doesn't change -- no matter how many wind turbines are erected...
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
Again, stupidity and twisted politics trumps science and fact.....
Soemthing is wrong here - there is no way that wind turbines emit the same CO2 as the equivalent coal or gas plant.
Climate Research NewsClick on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Well, it’s only the intentions that matter to liberals, so they’ll continue the policies to the detriment of their own economies. Our clown prince of a President is soon to follow with these absurdities. Oh, what fun it will be.
“It don’t work. Now what? ;0)”
Go back to the dark ages...no cars, no electricity.
That's not the claim of the article.
It goes on to state that Germany's renewables got such a footing that they were able to reduce output at their coal plants, and sell the carbon credits to other EU members so they could burn more coal.
It's more of a slam against cap n trade than wind or solar.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it is the european policies concerning their version of cap and trade that makes it impossible for (inefficient and expensive) wind turbines to make a measurable difference under their rules.
Wind turbines sound like a great “investment” for 0’s POStimulus.
This is bullsh!t. I agree.
I don’t think the rationale for doing wind should based in any way on “carbon footprint”, but the fact is that even without subsidies (and ALL forms of energy are subsidized) - wind power is cost-competitive now with other forms of generation.
Aha. Thank you.
Don’t laugh but it may happen. When we have a liberal idiot as president, we might be using slingshots against missiles.
Experts have known about this situation for some time, but it still isn't widely known to the public...Under no circumstances does Berlin want the Renewable Energy Law (EEG) -- which mandates the prices at which energy companies have to buy green power -- to fall into disrepute.
it's all about the money ;)
How so?
I can’t wait for some environmental group to conclude that windmills are a hazard to threatened and endangered species of birds and insects or that their vibrations disturb the mating habits of prairies dogs and black footed ferrets.
"The federal government has to subsidize windmill production through production tax credits of about 1.8¢ per kilowatt. Wind Farms also receive an accelerated depreciation. Wind farms are also land intensive. They produce a fraction of the energy of a traditional power plant but they require 100 times the acreage.
From the National Center for Policy Analysis: to produce a 1000 megawatt power plant a wind farm would require 192,000 acres or 300 square miles. A nuclear plant would need about 1700 acres (or 2.65 mi2), and about 3 mi2 for a coal fired power plant. The transmission lines for the wind turbines would be massive, 12,000 miles just for the array."
I can tell you don't work in the power industry.
Are you series?
As wind is added it knocks nukes of the grid. When the wind dies, the fossil fuel plants have to make up the difference. Nuke plants don’t have the ability to load follow very well.
Peaking power plants can be brought on line very fast to respond to changes. But with that speed comes a cost. The draw back is that they are inherently less efficient that a typical "thermal" plant that would normally be used to cover the base load of a grid. They take hours to bring on line, and to be used efficiently, must remain on for an extended period of time.
Wind power is very unreliable. A typical wind turbine is only capable of producing 15% of it rated capacity over a period of time due to not enough wind blowing. So if I want to have 100 MW of wind power, I must construct about 700 MW of capacity.
So if my wind power does not produce for one day out of a week, which it is almost certain to do, and I do not have a running thermal plant capable of taking up the slack, I must then start a less efficient, and dirtier per MW peaker to make up the capacity. All of the emissions savings I've accumulated by using wind power for that week go out the window in just one day of peaker operation.
From an economic and pollution standpoint I'm far better off to construct and run base loaded thermal plants, and keep them running.
This is the dirty little secret about wind power that everyone in the power industry knows. Wind and solar cannot be used to provide reliable base load capacity. They are a "displacement" power source. You use them to displace power you would otherwise be burning fuel to produce. This makes the system more efficient overall.
The only thing keeping wind power alive is rigged rules, and government subsidies.
That's already been going on in California for a decade. - The wind farm in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa counties is at about 1/3 capacity due to bird fatality suits.
In no case is wind competitive with conventional fuels.
Your claim that “all fuels” are subsidized is incorrect - unless you are somehow claiming subsidies that are irrelevant (like the oil depletion allowance or railroad costs in the 1800s for transporting coal.
Give your values, and cite your references for these “subsidies” you claim.
Wind power is, on overall average, producing power at a 20-23% percent effectiveness (any turbine can only make power one fifth of the time - or you need to make 5 turbines in 5 different “ideal” locations just to get the rated power of ONE turbine. Low wind - common over wide areas now? No power, though the blades might turn.
Too high a wind? No power. You have to “feather” the blades to protect them.
Too icy? No power. Snow? No power. They are an expensive, unreliable boondoggle that has several times taken down the German and Danish grids due to control instabilities. Many (not all) of Germany's wind turbine have been taken off-service because of this instability and unreliability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.