Author Topic: Wind turbines and politics  (Read 28395 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mastro GippoTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 55
Wind turbines and politics
« on: January 23, 2016, 07:09:15 pm »
Dave, check out this Australian politician's post:
https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/photos/a.117937578400885.1073741828.117871478407495/480644518796854/?type=3&theater

 :wtf: comments are even worse... Can you make a video about wind turbines sustainability, dedicating a few minutes to correct with actual data that idiotic post and mythbusting some of the more common misconceptions?
 :popcorn:
 

Offline Refrigerator

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1540
  • Country: lt
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2016, 09:36:44 pm »
"human stupidity knows no limits"
Yeah just about sums up that comment section.
I have a blog at http://brimmingideas.blogspot.com/ . Now less empty than ever before !
An expert of making MOSFETs explode.
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4509
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2016, 10:45:52 pm »
There is a good thesis titled "Embodied Energy Analysis of New Zealand Power Generation Systems" it quickly sums up the energy balance of wind and hydro compared to gas turbines while using realistic lifespans for all the types of plant. Unsurprisingly the lifecycle energy cost of the gas plants are 2-3 times the output energy, while wind is the inverse of this and produces around 5-20 times more energy than was used in its lifecycle. This is by counting the fuel that enters a thermal plant as energy while not counting the wind input to a wind turbine as energy, wikipedia has a list using the calculation that does not count the "fuel" input at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
 

Offline helius

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3632
  • Country: us
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2016, 11:09:12 pm »
A bare comparison of energy use is not really apples to apples since different forms of energy are different in terms of value and scarcity. That being said, a comparison like the one above makes very little sense and is more contrived than helpful.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6189
  • Country: us
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2016, 01:47:05 am »
There is a good thesis titled "Embodied Energy Analysis of New Zealand Power Generation Systems" it quickly sums up the energy balance of wind and hydro compared to gas turbines while using realistic lifespans for all the types of plant. Unsurprisingly the lifecycle energy cost of the gas plants are 2-3 times the output energy, while wind is the inverse of this and produces around 5-20 times more energy than was used in its lifecycle.

Someone, that's a major economical advantage for wind turbines. Feel free to invest your own money in wind turbine technologies. You will make a killing and laugh all the way to the bank.
 

Offline Samogon

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 457
  • Country: us
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2016, 08:44:16 pm »
A bare comparison of energy use is not really apples to apples since different forms of energy are different in terms of value and scarcity. That being said, a comparison like the one above makes very little sense and is more contrived than helpful.
+++
Exactly! Application of this type of this power sources is key measurement. For instance combination of solar and wind turbines on remote sites is possibly single acceptable solution. But for production lines is not sufficient. Well it can be used to light office of this factory :)
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4509
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2016, 02:29:41 am »
A bare comparison of energy use is not really apples to apples since different forms of energy are different in terms of value and scarcity. That being said, a comparison like the one above makes very little sense and is more contrived than helpful.
Which is why I presented the link to the opposing view with the different fuel "energy" removed from the accounting, the wind plant still has a competitive EROI in amount of energy produced.

A bare comparison of energy use is not really apples to apples since different forms of energy are different in terms of value and scarcity. That being said, a comparison like the one above makes very little sense and is more contrived than helpful.
+++
Exactly! Application of this type of this power sources is key measurement. For instance combination of solar and wind turbines on remote sites is possibly single acceptable solution. But for production lines is not sufficient. Well it can be used to light office of this factory :).
I'm not sure they were getting into the accounting of value varying with time, but rather the relative values of different types of energy (wind has little value, while oil competes for other uses).
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4509
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2016, 02:31:20 am »
There is a good thesis titled "Embodied Energy Analysis of New Zealand Power Generation Systems" it quickly sums up the energy balance of wind and hydro compared to gas turbines while using realistic lifespans for all the types of plant. Unsurprisingly the lifecycle energy cost of the gas plants are 2-3 times the output energy, while wind is the inverse of this and produces around 5-20 times more energy than was used in its lifecycle.
Someone, that's a major economical advantage for wind turbines. Feel free to invest your own money in wind turbine technologies. You will make a killing and laugh all the way to the bank.
Solar and wind makes good profits in Australia, the major obstacles are political/social ones. But as I've mentioned on here before if I had enough money to invest in wholesale infrastructure it would be in storage (hydro being a strong front runner).
 

Offline Srbel

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 360
  • Country: cs
  • Electronics engineer
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2016, 07:23:51 am »
Wind turbines have 30% efficiency (max). Blades brake down in the strong wind (explode, is the better word for it). They disturb the wildlife (birds). And so on...

Thermal power plants are the dogs balls. Just add filters.
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4509
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2016, 10:08:06 am »
Thermal power plants are the dogs balls. Just add filters.
trolling in a renewable energy forum? You can lick the dogs balls and I'll enjoy the fresh breeze.
 
The following users thanked this post: DenzilPenberthy

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4509
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2016, 10:17:35 am »
Wind turbines have 30% efficiency (max). Blades brake down in the strong wind (explode, is the better word for it). They disturb the wildlife (birds).
lets hold your hands on this one.

30% efficiency you say? That would be comparable to open cycle fossil fuel generation in operation or the common motor vehicle. And the 70% "losses" are just wind energy that wasn't extracted, while the combustion generation produces low grade heat which needs to be disposed of if there is no local market for it. 30% efficiency from a low grade and otherwise worthless energy source sounds like a fairytale, how could that be a negative?

Failures? All products have them. Failures from mining and oil recovery have had enourmous global impacts.

Impacts on wildlife? Compare that with numbers for other power sources, or cars, both hugely destructive. That's why the above numbers are rates/relative with the energy production, to allow comparisons rather than baseless scaremongering.
 

Offline Srbel

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 360
  • Country: cs
  • Electronics engineer
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2016, 11:14:43 am »
Thermal power plants are the dogs balls. Just add filters.
trolling in a renewable energy forum? You can lick the dogs balls and I'll enjoy the fresh breeze.

Coal, oil, gas... All renewable energy sources...

Oh, wait! You believe that oil comes from dinosaurs.

Wind turbines have 30% efficiency (max). Blades brake down in the strong wind (explode, is the better word for it). They disturb the wildlife (birds).
lets hold your hands on this one.

30% efficiency you say? That would be comparable to open cycle fossil fuel generation in operation or the common motor vehicle. And the 70% "losses" are just wind energy that wasn't extracted, while the combustion generation produces low grade heat which needs to be disposed of if there is no local market for it. 30% efficiency from a low grade and otherwise worthless energy source sounds like a fairytale, how could that be a negative?

Failures? All products have them. Failures from mining and oil recovery have had enourmous global impacts.

Impacts on wildlife? Compare that with numbers for other power sources, or cars, both hugely destructive. That's why the above numbers are rates/relative with the energy production, to allow comparisons rather than baseless scaremongering.

Thermal power plants don't use internal combustion engines. What wasted heat? You do realise that the extra could be used for central heating...
« Last Edit: January 27, 2016, 11:17:58 am by Srbel »
 

Offline DenzilPenberthy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 408
  • Country: gb
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2016, 12:47:50 pm »
They disturb the wildlife (birds). And so on...

... because the extraction, refining, transport and combustion  of coal, oil and gas all have zero ecological impact?   :-DD :palm:
 

Offline Delta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1221
  • Country: gb
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2016, 01:12:09 pm »
But as I've mentioned on here before if I had enough money to invest in wholesale infrastructure it would be in storage (hydro being a strong front runner).

 :-+ :-+ :-+ 800% agree!  (Bloody Batteriser...)

This really really is the elephant in the room, the most important aspect of decreasing CO2 emissions from electricity generation, but is hardly ever mentioned.

Without MASSIVE scale storage, we will always need fossil and/or nuclear plants.....
 

Online tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7305
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2016, 01:39:58 pm »
Oh, wait! You believe that oil comes from dinosaurs.
No, it comes from Russia.

Can we make a forum rule (should be in the Netiquette really, the original one) never to link facebook?
 

Offline Mechanical Menace

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1288
  • Country: gb
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2016, 03:08:22 pm »
Someone, that's a major economical advantage for wind turbines. Feel free to invest your own money in wind turbine technologies. You will make a killing and laugh all the way to the bank.

Shame the oil, gas, and coal companies can't do that, they take billions a year each in subsidies plus massive tax breaks as well. Even after they pay the fines for Deepwater Horizon (if they pay the whole $18-19 billion) BP will still have received $3 billionish more from American tax payers for 2010 than they paid in tax and fines for that years operations. Really if you're going to be fair you should complain just as loudly (if not louder) about those arrangements as you do about the pittance renewables get in comparison.

Your stance makes total sense IF you want to clean up that aspect of the whole energy market, but it really seems it only bother you when money is going to your pet hate tech.
Second sexiest ugly bloke on the forum.
"Don't believe every quote you read on the internet, because I totally didn't say that."
~Albert Einstein
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6189
  • Country: us
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2016, 04:23:43 pm »
Your stance makes total sense IF you want to clean up that aspect of the whole energy market, but it really seems it only bother you when money is going to your pet hate tech.

I am getting mixed messages here, the wind/solar market is doing great on its own merit but government need to keep paying people to use those products.

"hate tech"? You are making things up now. I don't hate solar or wind technologies. I hate the oppressive practices that some of their proponents promote.





 

Offline Delta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1221
  • Country: gb
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2016, 05:29:02 pm »
Someone, that's a major economical advantage for wind turbines. Feel free to invest your own money in wind turbine technologies. You will make a killing and laugh all the way to the bank.

Shame the oil, gas, and coal companies can't do that, they take billions a year each in subsidies plus massive tax breaks as well. Even after they pay the fines for Deepwater Horizon (if they pay the whole $18-19 billion) BP will still have received $3 billionish more from American tax payers for 2010 than they paid in tax and fines for that years operations. Really if you're going to be fair you should complain just as loudly (if not louder) about those arrangements as you do about the pittance renewables get in comparison.

Your stance makes total sense IF you want to clean up that aspect of the whole energy market, but it really seems it only bother you when money is going to your pet hate tech.

I often hear that oil companies get massive subsidies, (and I'm not immediately dismissing that) but could you give any more info?  I'm not aware of any government handing over cash directly, so what format do these subsidies take, and can they they be compared directly with subsidies for renewables? (in terms of method, not amount)

At face value, its hard to comprehend that the government "subsidises" fossil fuels, when about 60% of the price you pay at the fuel pump is tax!
 

Offline helius

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3632
  • Country: us
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2016, 08:30:23 pm »
They are usually talking about oil companies and the large R&D expenses that they can deduct. Finding and proving wells is considered R&D and benefits from R&D provisions in tax codes.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3575
  • Country: us
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2016, 08:39:42 pm »

I often hear that oil companies get massive subsidies, (and I'm not immediately dismissing that) but could you give any more info?  I'm not aware of any government handing over cash directly, so what format do these subsidies take, and can they they be compared directly with subsidies for renewables? (in terms of method, not amount)


The $5.3 trillion (per year!) details can be found HERE
« Last Edit: January 27, 2016, 08:43:59 pm by mtdoc »
 

Offline helius

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3632
  • Country: us
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2016, 08:49:34 pm »
If you take the time to read the report, it says that the lion's share of what it calls "subsidies" are from energy products not being taxed at as high a level as they would like. "The considerable size of coal subsidies reflects the substantial undercharging for its environmental impacts."
Classic equivocation.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3575
  • Country: us
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2016, 09:05:36 pm »
If you take the time to read the report, it says that the lion's share of what it calls "subsidies" are from energy products not being taxed at as high a level as they would like. "The considerable size of coal subsidies reflects the substantial undercharging for its environmental impacts."
Classic equivocation.

That's a gross mischaracterization.  It's a very careful and detailed analysis . The Interntional Monetary Fund is not exactly known as environmentalists.

 

Offline helius

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3632
  • Country: us
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #22 on: January 27, 2016, 09:29:49 pm »
It is you who are equivocating, and now using additional fallacies of ipse dixit and straw man. I did not imply that it was other than a "detailed analysis", but that its analysis is entirely concerned with pricing energy relative to its environmental impact, and does not discuss tax breaks at all.
Which is the context in which this "subsidy" always gets brought up. The meaning of "subsidy" in the IMF paper is the exact opposite of the way it is being used here:
Shame the oil, gas, and coal companies can't do that, they take billions a year each in subsidies plus massive tax breaks as well.
The IMF draft defines "subsidy" as: "It focuses on the broad notion of post-tax energy subsidies, which arise when consumer prices are below supply costs plus a tax to reflect environmental damage and an additional tax applied to all consumption goods to raise government revenues."
It does not pertain in any way to the conversation taking place, which is to say, a classic equivocation.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3575
  • Country: us
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2016, 09:59:40 pm »
It is you who are equivocating, and now using additional fallacies of ipse dixit and straw man. I did not imply that it was other than a "detailed analysis", but that its analysis is entirely concerned with pricing energy relative to its environmental impact, and does not discuss tax breaks at all.
Which is the context in which this "subsidy" always gets brought up. The meaning of "subsidy" in the IMF paper is the exact opposite of the way it is being used here:
Shame the oil, gas, and coal companies can't do that, they take billions a year each in subsidies plus massive tax breaks as well.
The IMF draft defines "subsidy" as: "It focuses on the broad notion of post-tax energy subsidies, which arise when consumer prices are below supply costs plus a tax to reflect environmental damage and an additional tax applied to all consumption goods to raise government revenues."
It does not pertain in any way to the conversation taking place, which is to say, a classic equivocation.

In fact the IMF paper discusses both pre and post tax subsidies. The link is there for anyone to read.

It was posted simply as one source of info to answer Delta's question about details of subsidies (he did not specify tax subsidies in his question and in fact Mechanical Menace did not refer to only tax subsidies either).  It was not meant to be all inclusive.

If you want some details of their tax subsidies - one source of info can be found HERE

You keep using the word "equivicocation" - I do not think it means what you think it means. My language and the language in the report is quite clear and specific.

You seem to be trying to pick a fight.    The facts stand for themselves.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2016, 10:04:05 pm by mtdoc »
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4509
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: Wind turbines and politics
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2016, 10:20:07 pm »
Thermal power plants are the dogs balls. Just add filters.
trolling in a renewable energy forum? You can lick the dogs balls and I'll enjoy the fresh breeze.
Coal, oil, gas... All renewable energy sources...
Renewable at 0.0001% of their current rate of consumption? Thats not renewable, sustainable, or representative of the value of the energy.

Wind turbines have 30% efficiency (max). Blades brake down in the strong wind (explode, is the better word for it). They disturb the wildlife (birds).
lets hold your hands on this one.

30% efficiency you say? That would be comparable to open cycle fossil fuel generation in operation or the common motor vehicle. And the 70% "losses" are just wind energy that wasn't extracted, while the combustion generation produces low grade heat which needs to be disposed of if there is no local market for it. 30% efficiency from a low grade and otherwise worthless energy source sounds like a fairytale, how could that be a negative?
Thermal power plants don't use internal combustion engines. What wasted heat? You do realise that the extra could be used for central heating...
Either you're trolling or you have a poor understanding of the english language. Internal combustion vehicles..... and .....open cycle power plants....  both have efficiencies around 30%, which is considered a good effort approaching their theoretical maximums, just as with wind turbines.

And just to highlight it again

the combustion generation produces low grade heat which needs to be disposed of if there is no local market for it
Yes, co-generation/CHP is a much better use of combustion but the worldwide demand for it is very low with strong geographic and/or seasonal requirements. All power sources have their strengths and weaknesses, but efficient wind turbines are not a weakness of them.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf