EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Electronics => Power/Renewable Energy/EV's => Topic started by: Mastro Gippo 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 (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:
-
"human stupidity knows no limits"
Yeah just about sums up that comment section.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :).
-
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).
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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...
-
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:
-
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.....
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/Understanding%20Oil%20%20Gas%20Subsidies%282%29.pdf)
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.
-
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.
-
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.....
If you look at the daily energy market in your country or mine storage utilities make money and improve the efficiency of fossil fuel and nuclear plants too! But the investment money has been going into open (and some closed) cycle gas plants to provide dispatchable power as the upfront investments are smaller, despite the lower return over the life of the plant.
Checking the installed base of Australia it looks like around 10% of the total installed capacity is in sort availability gas peaking plants, compared to 20% total hydro (which is very profitable with its ability to store and dispatch),
-
If you want some details of their tax subsidies - one source of info can be found HERE (http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/Understanding%20Oil%20%20Gas%20Subsidies%282%29.pdf)
Looking for example at the 199 section tax break that mentioned in that paper, it is not specific to fossil fuel companies and covers general manufacturing activities such as ""computer software, and sound recordings.", "The services of architecture/engineering" and "The production of qualified film".
http://greenwaltcpas.com/2010/10/what-is-the-section-199-deduction/ (http://greenwaltcpas.com/2010/10/what-is-the-section-199-deduction/)
I will not be surprised if Tesla also benefits from this tax break since it manufactures "tangible personal property".
-
Thermal power plants can work 24/7, wind turbines can not. Fail.
-
If you want some details of their tax subsidies - one source of info can be found HERE (http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/Understanding%20Oil%20%20Gas%20Subsidies%282%29.pdf)
Looking for example at the 199 section tax break that mentioned in that paper, it is not specific to fossil fuel companies and covers general manufacturing activities such as ""computer software, and sound recordings.", "The services of architecture/engineering" and "The production of qualified film".
http://greenwaltcpas.com/2010/10/what-is-the-section-199-deduction/ (http://greenwaltcpas.com/2010/10/what-is-the-section-199-deduction/)
I will not be surprised if Tesla also benefits from this tax break since it manufactures "tangible personal property".
Probably. As probably do many engineering and software companies. How is Tesla relevant? From your link:
What activities are eligible for the Section 199 deduction?
Per Section 199, domestic production gross receipts (DPGR) can be derived from the following qualifying production activities as long as they are conducted in whole or in significant part within the U.S.:
The manufacture, production, growth, or extraction by the taxpayer of tangible personal property. This encompasses all tangible personal property (except land and building), computer software, and sound recordings.
The production of qualified film
The production of electricity, natural gas, or water
The construction of real property
The services of architecture/engineering
-
If you want some details of their tax subsidies - one source of info can be found HERE (http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/Understanding%20Oil%20%20Gas%20Subsidies%282%29.pdf)
Looking for example at the 199 section tax break that mentioned in that paper, it is not specific to fossil fuel companies and covers general manufacturing activities such as ""computer software, and sound recordings.", "The services of architecture/engineering" and "The production of qualified film".
http://greenwaltcpas.com/2010/10/what-is-the-section-199-deduction/ (http://greenwaltcpas.com/2010/10/what-is-the-section-199-deduction/)
I will not be surprised if Tesla also benefits from this tax break since it manufactures "tangible personal property".
Probably. As probably do many engineering and software companies. How is Tesla relevant? From your link:
Conveniently you dodged the main point that section 199 is not fossil energy specific.
As for Tesla, they also manufacture domestically.
"Making hamburgers would qualify for a lowered tax rate on "manufacturing, production, growth or extraction" profits in section 199, under the reasoning applied by Judge James V. Selna. He held that arranging candy bars, wrapped cheese, wine bottles, and other items "creates a new product with a different demand" than grocery items have individually"
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Features/EAA894611F6FFC3085257BBE0046DAF0?OpenDocument (http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Features/EAA894611F6FFC3085257BBE0046DAF0?OpenDocument)
-
If you want some details of their tax subsidies - one source of info can be found HERE (http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/Understanding%20Oil%20%20Gas%20Subsidies%282%29.pdf)
Looking for example at the 199 section tax break that mentioned in that paper, it is not specific to fossil fuel companies and covers general manufacturing activities such as ""computer software, and sound recordings.", "The services of architecture/engineering" and "The production of qualified film".
http://greenwaltcpas.com/2010/10/what-is-the-section-199-deduction/ (http://greenwaltcpas.com/2010/10/what-is-the-section-199-deduction/)
I will not be surprised if Tesla also benefits from this tax break since it manufactures "tangible personal property".
Probably. As probably do many engineering and software companies. How is Tesla relevant? From your link:
Conveniently you dodged the main point that section 199 is not fossil energy specific-?
Main point? Huh? You're the one who dug it out of a reference. Who said it was fossil fuel specific?
As for Tesla, they also manufacture domestically.
Uh, yeah. So do thousands of companies - why bring up Tesla?
You seem to go be going through a lot of twists and turns to bring in your usual agenda and create conflict.
As for the topic of the thread -All energy/electricity production is heavily government subsidized - citing one obscure tax break and trying to change the topic to Tesla doesn't change those facts - it just reveals a political agenda.
-
You seem to go be going through a lot of twists and turns to bring in your usual agenda and create conflict.
As for the topic of the thread -All energy/electricity production is heavily government subsidized - citing one obscure tax break and trying to change the topic to Tesla doesn't change those facts - it just reveals a political agenda.
mtdoc, pointing that Tesla and hamburger makers are also covered by the 'fossil fuel subsidy' Section 199 listed in the doc you linked is not an agenda, it is a debunk.
A rational honest person would accept it and move on. A fan boy would give a tantrum and blame others.
-
You seem to go be going through a lot of twists and turns to bring in your usual agenda and create conflict.
As for the topic of the thread -All energy/electricity production is heavily government subsidized - citing one obscure tax break and trying to change the topic to Tesla doesn't change those facts - it just reveals a political agenda.
mtdoc, pointing that Tesla and hamburger makers are also covered by the 'fossil fuel subsidy' Section 199 listed in the doc you linked is not an agenda, it is a debunk.
Debunk? Debunk what? In response to a question, I posted a link to details of the large subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry. One by the IMF (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf) that examines the $5+ trillion/ year of government subsidies (tax and non tax related) and one (http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/Understanding%20Oil%20%20Gas%20Subsidies%282%29.pdf) put out by Taxpayers for Common Sense (http://www.taxpayer.net/about) that details the billions in tax subsidies. It clearly details and delineates between Fossil Fuel industry specific and non specific tax subsidies. In fact it clearly states that this deduction applies to other industries as well.
You picked one of the non fossil fuel specific ones and go off on a (irrelevant) tangent about Tesla.
No one ever claimed all of the fossil fuel subsidies where specific to that industry. Who is being dishonest?
BTW, the mission statement for Taxpayers for Common Sense (http://www.taxpayer.net/about) states:
Founded in 1995, Taxpayers for Common Sense is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan budget watchdog that serves as an independent voice for American taxpayers. Our mission is to ensure that the federal government spends taxpayer dollars responsibly and operates within its means
I would think that would be a mission you would support. No?
A rational honest person would accept it and move on. A fan boy would give a tantrum and blame others.
Tantrum? blame others? Where? For what? Please specify.
The thread speaks for itself - anyone can see.
-
No one ever claimed all of the fossil fuel subsidies where specific to that industry. Who is being dishonest?
Well, one of the key arguments for giving the renewable industry targeted subsidies is that the fossil fuel industry gets its own.
The deception is in including a in the argument a tax break that covers many other domestic manufactures including hamburger makers, Tesla, and domestic wind turbines if there is any but singling out the fossil energy companies.
-
No one ever claimed all of the fossil fuel subsidies where specific to that industry. Who is being dishonest?
Well, one of the key arguments for giving the renewable industry targeted subsidies is that the fossil fuel industry gets its own.
The deception is in including a in the argument a tax break that covers many other domestic manufactures including hamburger makers, Tesla, and domestic wind turbines if there is any but singling out the fossil energy companies.
1. The 199 deduction was one of many found in one of the references. You're the one who singled it out - not me. Who is being deceptive?
2. The point is that ALL energy/electricity production is heavily government subisidized - not just renewables as you are wont to attack (implying that they are somehow special in that regard) - ignoring all the facts to the contrary.
3. Since the fact is that all energy/ electricitly production is subsidized, how is the point that one of the tax subsidies applies to lots of other things relevant? If anything it just supports the fact that RE is no different. Again, who is being deceptive here?
4. Again - how is Tesla relevant? Why mention them?
5. Again - are you opposed to the mission of Taxpayers for Common Sense? I ask because I think this should be an area where we can find common ground. Government should spend taxpayer money carefully. Tax subsidies should be targeted and limited. Their examination of tax subsidies to the Oil and Gas industry points out that as a mature, extremely profitable industry - ongoing tax subsidies to them are unjustified - no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. Wouldn't you agree?
-
No one ever claimed all of the fossil fuel subsidies where specific to that industry. Who is being dishonest?
Well, one of the key arguments for giving the renewable industry targeted subsidies is that the fossil fuel industry gets its own.
The deception is in including a in the argument a tax break that covers many other domestic manufactures including hamburger makers, Tesla, and domestic wind turbines if there is any but singling out the fossil energy companies.
1. The 199 deduction was one of many found in one of the references. You're the one who singled it out - not me. Who is being deceptive?
2. The point is that ALL energy/electricity production is heavily government subisidized - not just renewables as you are wont to attack (implying that they are somehow special in that regard) - ignoring all the facts to the contrary.
3. Since the fact is that all energy/ electricitly production is subsidized, how is the point that one of the tax subsidies applies to lots of other things relevant? If anything it just supports the fact that RE is no different. Again, who is being deceptive here?
4. Again - how is Tesla relevant? Why mention them?
5. Again - are you opposed to the mission of Taxpayers for Common Sense? I ask because I think this should be an area where we can find common ground. Government should spend taxpayer money carefully. Tax subsidies should be targeted and limited. Their examination of tax subsidies to the Oil and Gas industry points out that as a mature, extremely profitable industry - ongoing tax subsidies to them are unjustified - no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. Wouldn't you agree?
I did a spot check in the doc you linked, picked an arbitrary point, researched it, found it to be misleading (hamburger manufacturers and Tesla are also covered by that 'fossil energy subsidy'), reported my findings here, and you keep going all over the place.
One more proof that debating with the believers is futile.
-
I did a spot check in the doc you linked, picked an arbitrary point, researched it, found it to be misleading (hamburger manufacturers and Tesla are also covered by that 'fossil energy subsidy'), reported my findings here, and you keep going all over the place.
One more proof that debating with the believers is futile.
No, you cherry picked, tried to use it to make some irrelevant point (that it was claimed to only apply to fossil fuels -refuted in the very same reference) that in no way refutes the fact that all energy is subsidized, did your best to bring in Tesla to the argument, troll for conflict, then respond to referenced facts saying something about "believers".
-
This is a forum for engineers, scientists and technicians. Let's try to act like what we are and use data in a presentable format or else admit that we don't have them.
The petroleum industry does receive some specific "subsidies" (at least here in the US) that I am aware of in the form of tax shelters and so on. They are arcane, specific rules related to production and production equipment. They vary from state to state. I learned of them when trying to deal with the final years taxes of a deceased family member who had got involved in investments involving these tax dodges. They didn't benefit that family member much and were so involved, requireing incredible amounts of paperwork that I am not surprised that they are not widely understood. From my point of view they were far more trouble than they were worth. The same amount of time spent researching stock investments would have provided that person with far better financial returns.
That said, I can't speak quantitatively to the impact of those tax breaks financially or compare them in any meaningful way to other industries.
R&D credits may well provide differential benefits to the petroleum industry since exploration and development of better extraction methods is such a large part of their costs, but that credit is available to all industries, including solar and wind. If wind companies are not taking tax advantage of their costs for site location and evaluation, design improvement and so on, then shame on them.
If I were to point fingers at politics relative to wind turbines I would look at the NIMBY phenomenon. There aren't that many truly superior wind generation sites, and many of them have been blocked by folks who don't want their view ruined. Cape Cod being the most prominant national example.
-
I did a spot check in the doc you linked, picked an arbitrary point, researched it, found it to be misleading (hamburger manufacturers and Tesla are also covered by that 'fossil energy subsidy'), reported my findings here, and you keep going all over the place.
One more proof that debating with the believers is futile.
No, you cherry picked, tried to use it to make some irrelevant point (that it was claimed to only apply to fossil fuels -refuted in the very same reference) that in no way refutes the fact that all energy is subsidized, did your best to bring in Tesla to the argument, troll for conflict, then respond to referenced facts saying something about "believers".
Tesla is an example for a non fossil fuel domestic manufacturer that is covered by the Section 199 tax break. It's demonstrates the misleading nature of singling out 199 beneficiaries from the fossil energy market.
I was not aware that the name Tesla is so sacred to you. Feel free to replace with other domestic manufacturers.
-
Tesla is an example for a non fossil fuel domestic manufacturer that is covered by the Section 199 tax break. It's demonstrates the misleading nature of singling out 199 beneficiaries from the fossil energy market.
You singled it out - no one else did.
In fact the reference (http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/Understanding%20Oil%20%20Gas%20Subsidies%282%29.pdf) I provided specifically says on page 16 where it discusses this tax break;
Roughly one-third of all US corporate activity now qualifies for this deduction, including mining, oil extraction, farming, construction, architecture, engineering, and the production of software, recordings and films.
Did you think no one would look? Your blatant dishonesty here is astounding!
Again - that is one of many tax breaks the oil and gas industry get. Some specific to their industry, some not. No one is claiming otherwise. That not every tax break they get is specific only to them is irrelevant just as it is irrelevant that not every tax break a RE company gets is specific to them. The point - which you seem unwilling to concede - despite all evidence to the contrary - is that all energy/electricity production is government subsidized.
Tesla has nothing to do with this thread. The reason you bring it up is pretty transparent.
-
Tesla is an example for a non fossil fuel domestic manufacturer that is covered by the Section 199 tax break. It's demonstrates the misleading nature of singling out 199 beneficiaries from the fossil energy market.
You singled it out - no one else did.
In fact the reference (http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/Understanding%20Oil%20%20Gas%20Subsidies%282%29.pdf) I provided specifically says on page 16 where it discusses this tax break;
Roughly one-third of all US corporate activity now qualifies for this deduction, including mining, oil extraction, farming, construction, architecture, engineering, and the production of software, recordings and films.
Did you think no one would look? Your blatant dishonesty here is astounding!
Again - that is one of many tax breaks the oil and gas industry get. Some specific to their industry, some not. No one is claiming otherwise. That not every tax break they get is specific only to them is irrelevant just as it is irrelevant that not every tax break a RE company gets is specific to them. The point - which you seem unwilling to concede - despite all evidence to the contrary - is that all energy/electricity production is government subsidized.
Tesla has nothing to do with this thread. The reason you bring it up is pretty transparent.
Well, if honest people want to justify very targeted subsidies to wind/solar based on subsidies to competing technologies, they should not count subsidies that target general domestic manufacturing and are not target at those completing technology. Otherwise they intentionally inflate the numbers to mislead the public.
Anyway, I am out of this loop.
Anyway, I am getting out of this loop.
-
This is a forum for engineers, scientists and technicians. Let's try to act like what we are and use data in a presentable format or else admit that we don't have them.
Yes please.
The petroleum industry does receive some specific "subsidies" (at least here in the US) that I am aware of in the form of tax shelters and so on. They are arcane, specific rules related to production and production equipment. They vary from state to state.
I suspect you're right that there are state specific tax breaks as well. The TCS reference I provided earlier outlines the federal tax subsidies. The IMF report addresses worldwide subsides.
R&D credits may well provide differential benefits to the petroleum industry since exploration and development of better extraction methods is such a large part of their costs, but that credit is available to all industries, including solar and wind. If wind companies are not taking tax advantage of their costs for site location and evaluation, design improvement and so on, then shame on them.
Targeted tax subsidies are widespread across many industries. IMO they make sense when an industry is trying to establish a foothold against entrenched competitors (yes, of course many will disagree). This has been going on for many years, across many industrial and technological areas.
Arguing that somehow RE is unique in this regard has no basis in fact.
The question becomes - when do you end the subsidies? What seems to happen too often is that the companies and industry subsidized early in their development that become financially successful then gain substantial political clout through lobbying and general corruption of the political process that always occurs. As time goes on the subsidies are never ended and often are expanded (case in point - the oil and gas industries)
If I were to point fingers at politics relative to wind turbines I would look at the NIMBY phenomenon. There aren't that many truly superior wind generation sites, and many of them have been blocked by folks who don't want their view ruined. Cape Cod being the most prominant national example.
Good point. NIMBYism is a major problem for energy/electricity production across the board. I grew up next door to an oil refinery that was built in the 1960s - before NIMBYism became commonplace. Wind farms ruining peoples views are prime examples as are the ongoing problems with nuclear waste disposal.
Getting back to the original post, wind power has significant maintenance costs due to it's mechanical nature - as do oil and gas drilling and refining, fossil fuel powered electricity generation and nuclear. Solar does as well but is better in that regard as there are few if any moving parts.
My view - as I've stated before - is that RE will never fully replace fossil fuels. What I find perplexing is why so many politicos are so devoted to impeding progress of something that can at least partially replace what is unquestionably a finite resource.
-
... because the extraction, refining, transport and combustion of coal, oil and gas all have zero ecological impact? :-DD :palm:
Of course not, but it's either conveniently hidden away from people who would have their say about it, or... providing them jobs.
The wind turbine in front of their window that happily chugs away with minor maintenance needs does neither...
-
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...
Funny, last time I walked round my local turbines bird happily flew in and out of them as they went round. There are all sorts of myths about wind turbines but I'll tell you one that isn't: up to 25% of UK energy can be generated by wind, when winter began and the wind stopped one night the grid got into trouble, but apparently wind turbines are useless. Granted the wind does not always blow but they are actually quite good. As for your efficiency figure it's rubbish, and no worse than cars.
-
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.
In case of strong wind, blades do not brake. Wind turbines made for high wind locations are designed to secure themselves.
The 3 blades will come along the pole to present a lesser wind profile.
On the west coast of France we have sometimes (rarely) winds of up to 150 km/h. No wind turbine disaster so far.
There are offshore wind turbines in the UK north sea and they see winds higher than that.
-
They may be able to privide 25% of our electrical energy, but can never be relied upon to provide 25% of our electrical POWER.
No more wind turbines should be built, and the money put into massive scale storage technology developement.
Without huge storage, we will always need fossil and nuclear.
-
What he says is that until storage is available uncontrollably variable sources like wind are bound to stay a minor part of total energy supply.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5Rpb12N5s&feature=player_embedded
This sums up rather well what I think of people flatly opposed to wind turbines.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5Rpb12N5s&feature=player_embedded (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5Rpb12N5s&feature=player_embedded)
This sums up rather well what I think of people flatly opposed to wind turbines.
I would like to invite people in favor of wind power to take a look at what happened in Germany:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/02/shocking-before-and-after-photos-how-wind-parks-are-devastating-idyllic-german-countryside/#sthash.U1dr2E3d.dpbs (http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/02/shocking-before-and-after-photos-how-wind-parks-are-devastating-idyllic-german-countryside/#sthash.U1dr2E3d.dpbs)
>:(
-
(http://www.ewea.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/20110709_rvw_force_czech_104.jpg)
I'll take wind over coal (especially open cast strip-mined German brown coal!) any day!
-
I'll take wind over coal (especially open cast strip-mined German brown coal!) any day!
Never.
For the amount of energy coming from a coal mine (and 24/7) you will need thousands of wind parks devastating a huge amount of landscape.
Its about energy density and renewable's win that battle.
-
I'll take wind over coal (especially open cast strip-mined German brown coal!) any day!
Never.
For the amount of energy coming from a coal mine (and 24/7) you will need thousands of wind parks devastating a huge amount of landscape.
Its about energy density and renewable's win that battle.
There are quite a lot of the giant kind around where I live and I don't mind them. Kind of nice in "giant benevolent scifi mastodons" way.
The example cited earlier are fields of the older shorter ones (lots of those in Zeeland) and I agree that that specific arrangement is not ideal.
But for us (Belgium) a country with few energy sources, the options are at best buying energy from our neighbours and at worst from wahabis that want to machine gun us...
In any case it drives the trade deficit the wrong way...
-
How do they sync the output frequency/phase of those windmills to the grid? Controlling the rotation of the blades? continuously variable transmission? DC/AC converter?
-
Some of the ones where I live turn at a constant Rpm "steps", power output is regulated by blade angle...
The latest ones have no gear boxes and I have no idea.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5Rpb12N5s&feature=player_embedded
This sums up rather well what I think of people flatly opposed to wind turbines.
If you want to live in a preindustrial landscape then you should forego all the benefits of industrialisation. Oh shit that means you will live by candlelight hand wash all your clothing have no TV no telephone no Internet. The problem with people living in the country is that they think they have a right to have it all. If they want their modern way of life they should go and live next to a coal fired power station and then complain.
-
For controlling the frequency, there are different solutions. Some use gears, though usually not continuously variable. Some use electronic DC/AC converters, variable pole number generators and / or AC excitation with variable frequency and older, smaller ones used asynchronous generators. There are still different solutions around.
Getting coal from underground mines also has some downsides. You don't see the mines, but the ground is slowly sinking, causing quite some trouble over hundreds of years. But long term coal is not an alternative at all, unless you have a permanent sink for CO2.
-
For controlling the frequency, there are different solutions. Some use gears, though usually not continuously variable. Some use electronic DC/AC converters, variable pole number generators and / or AC excitation with variable frequency and older, smaller ones used asynchronous generators. There are still different solutions around.
Getting coal from underground mines also has some downsides. You don't see the mines, but the ground is slowly sinking, causing quite some trouble over hundreds of years. But long term coal is not an alternative at all, unless you have a permanent sink for CO2.
Not forgetting burning coal for energy is short sighted in the industrial context.
Energy, as electricity or heat, can be gotten by other means, while replacing coal in the production of steel is rather problematic.
Burning the brown crap can defended, but the highest grades should be reserved for the future of our industry.
Same goes for oil, certain varieties are the "go to" to produce carbon fibre and resins, burning it in SUV's is criminal.
-
If you want to live in a preindustrial landscape then you should forego all the benefits of industrialisation. Oh shit that means you will live by candlelight hand wash all your clothing have no TV no telephone no Internet.
Yeah, because we've had to do all that for the past 100 years to be able to live with the landscapes we currently have... :palm:
-
If you want to live in a preindustrial landscape then you should forego all the benefits of industrialisation. Oh shit that means you will live by candlelight hand wash all your clothing have no TV no telephone no Internet.
Yeah, because we've had to do all that for the past 100 years to be able to live with the landscapes we currently have... :palm:
I don't quite follow. To put it another way there is a village not far from me which being somewhere in the country is a bit of a market. This village is also the site of an airfield that has been there since the Second World War. The airfield has long argued to have a hard runway for its light aircraft and plans for this were in place long before some very loud complainers about their plans moved to the village. Arguments against the hard runway ranged from objections to the airfield having jet planes landing and taking off and the fact that it would mean more helicopters. Basically when somebody doesn't like something happening near them they will come up with any amount of stupid and unreasonable reasons why it should not happen because ultimately people only care about themselves. I would quite happily live near a wind turbine. It would produce no emissions I would not hear it (and I am very sensitive to low-frequency sound) and I would actually be able to see the landscape beyond it which is more than I can say the people living near warehousing which nobody seems to object to. Strangely warehousing is often built on highpoints and completely obstruct the view yet people complain about a stick with a fan on top of it. Environmental excuses are usually just excuses if people don't mind warehouses they can bloodily well have wind turbines
-
If you want to live in a preindustrial landscape then you should forego all the benefits of industrialisation. Oh shit that means you will live by candlelight hand wash all your clothing have no TV no telephone no Internet.
Yeah, because we've had to do all that for the past 100 years to be able to live with the landscapes we currently have... :palm:
I don't quite follow. To put it another way there is a village not far from me which being somewhere in the country is a bit of a market. This village is also the site of an airfield that has been there since the Second World War. The airfield has long argued to have a hard runway for its light aircraft and plans for this were in place long before some very loud complainers about their plans moved to the village. Arguments against the hard runway ranged from objections to the airfield having jet planes landing and taking off and the fact that it would mean more helicopters. Basically when somebody doesn't like something happening near them they will come up with any amount of stupid and unreasonable reasons why it should not happen because ultimately people only care about themselves. I would quite happily live near a wind turbine. It would produce no emissions I would not hear it (and I am very sensitive to low-frequency sound) and I would actually be able to see the landscape beyond it which is more than I can say the people living near warehousing which nobody seems to object to. Strangely warehousing is often built on highpoints and completely obstruct the view yet people complain about a stick with a fan on top of it. Environmental excuses are usually just excuses if people don't mind warehouses they can bloodily well have wind turbines
In a village in the south of France where I lived, some city idiot moved in because 'bucolic" and then promptly filed a complaint at the Gendarmerie (Police) about the farm cockerels making noise in the morning.
Then was all sad when nobody wanted to sell him eggs/milk/veg/fruits at any price, the baker only having broken/burnt baguette, the butcher always out of prime cuts (etc) and he had to drive 25km to get said staples at the supermarket.
As for the infra sounds, in bed when all is still, I can hear the coal trains being formed up at the steel mill (6km away) but I've never heard the wind turbines within a km of my house.
To hear them, you need to get close and perpendicular to the disk. Then it's a nice rippling/woosh sound that's quite captivating.
The best moment to do that is when the ground wind is nill but the blades are turning with higher currents.
-
I would like to invite people in favor of wind power to take a look at what happened in Germany:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/02/shocking-before-and-after-photos-how-wind-parks-are-devastating-idyllic-german-countryside/#sthash.U1dr2E3d.dpbs (http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/02/shocking-before-and-after-photos-how-wind-parks-are-devastating-idyllic-german-countryside/#sthash.U1dr2E3d.dpbs)
>:(
maybe this power station is more to your liking.
(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/06/22/1226405/919666-hazelwood-power-station.jpg)
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=hazelwood+power+station&biw=1216&bih=595&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIk7Cf-pPLAhVFp5QKHX7bByoQ_AUICCgC&dpr=1.58 (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=hazelwood+power+station&biw=1216&bih=595&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIk7Cf-pPLAhVFp5QKHX7bByoQ_AUICCgC&dpr=1.58)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-10/hazelwood-mine-fire-special-health-improvement-zone-recommended/7154950 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-10/hazelwood-mine-fire-special-health-improvement-zone-recommended/7154950)
-
Thank goodness the Chinese (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/12/china-smog-pollution-beijing) don't have those awful wind turbines ruining their vistas
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/12/1394622465322/Smog-hit-Chinese-cities--009.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=00a2ea56372518f9693e07253f551370)
-
I would like to invite people in favor of wind power to take a look at what happened in Germany:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/02/shocking-before-and-after-photos-how-wind-parks-are-devastating-idyllic-german-countryside/#sthash.U1dr2E3d.dpbs (http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/02/shocking-before-and-after-photos-how-wind-parks-are-devastating-idyllic-german-countryside/#sthash.U1dr2E3d.dpbs)
>:(
maybe this power station is more to your liking.
(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/06/22/1226405/919666-hazelwood-power-station.jpg)
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=hazelwood+power+station&biw=1216&bih=595&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIk7Cf-pPLAhVFp5QKHX7bByoQ_AUICCgC&dpr=1.58 (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=hazelwood+power+station&biw=1216&bih=595&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIk7Cf-pPLAhVFp5QKHX7bByoQ_AUICCgC&dpr=1.58)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-10/hazelwood-mine-fire-special-health-improvement-zone-recommended/7154950 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-10/hazelwood-mine-fire-special-health-improvement-zone-recommended/7154950)
To be fair they have put scrubbers on all the major power stations in Australia, so you don't see the plumes anymore and the particulate pollution has been reduced substantially. But coal is going to run out quickly at the rate its being used, and those large coal power stations in Victoria are built on top of huge mines because the coal is uneconomic to transport. The towns that form around the sites have no problem with putting their schools or aged car facilities a few km away from the power plants, and could make for some interesting data.
-
Thank goodness the Chinese (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/12/china-smog-pollution-beijing) don't have those awful wind turbines ruining their vistas
Putting things in perspective. They live longer than ever.
(http://www.china-profile.com/data/figures/fig_wpp2008_L0_1.gif)
-
Putting things in perspective. They live longer than ever.
Equally relevant to the discussion of electricity generation effects on views , they also export more turnips than ever. :)
(http://www.etf.com/sites/default/files/hai/Chinese-Export-of-Fresh-Veg_.jpg)
And just imagine how many more turnips they would export or lifespan might increase if they just burned more coal! Er, or maybe not (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/32/12936.full) :-\
-
Putting things in perspective. They live longer than ever.
Equally relevant to the discussion of electricity generation effects on views , they also export more turnips than ever. :)
(http://www.etf.com/sites/default/files/hai/Chinese-Export-of-Fresh-Veg_.jpg)
And just imagine how many more turnips they would export or lifespan might increase if they just burned more coal! Er, or maybe not (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/32/12936.full) :-\
Hmm, somebody on the internet has hard time recognizing the many benefits that abundance, cheap and reliable energy bring to developing countries. Oh, well, it's a diverse group here.
-
Hmm, somebody on the internet has hard time recognizing the many benefits that abundance, cheap and reliable energy bring to developing countries. Oh, well, it's a diverse group here.
It's just not what the discussion was about. It was about what are the pros and cons of wind power relative to other electricity generation sources. Your post was unrelated.
My view - as I've stated before - is that fossil fuels have made possible the rapid rise in world food production , technology and as a result, rising world population. Certainly it has allowed a small portion of the population to accumulate a large amount of material wealth. Whether or not any or all of those are good things is a matter of perspective.
As far as average life span - it is primarily due to improvement in public health measures and global immunization efforts. This happened despite the well known ill health effects of burning fossil fuels. Correlation does not mean causation.
So - you'll get no disagreement from me that the excess energy that fossil fuels have provided has meant more technology, more food production and more people -as well as more material wealth for some. But of course the question is how long will those "benefits" last and what happens when the party's over?
The serious question is: Is there a way to replace at least some of the electricity production currently done by burning fossil fuels with cleaner sources of energy that are more sustainable and less harmful to health?
My view is we will never replace it all. But should we try to replace some of it while we still can?
More serious questions:
Should we be saving as much coal as possible so that we don't run out of steel?
Should we be saving as much easily extractable oil as possible so that we can continue to have it to manufacture other things that have no replacement like polymers, plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc?
So you see, anyone really interested in more sustainable abundance would not be trying to muddy the waters with illogical correlations.
But for those only concerned with short term abundance - by all means, Party On!
-
So - you'll get no disagreement from me that the excess energy that fossil fuels have provided has meant more technology, more food production and more people -as well as more material wealth for some...
Must be hard to admit. Good job!
-
So - you'll get no disagreement from me that the excess energy that fossil fuels have provided has meant more technology, more food production and more people -as well as more material wealth for some...
Must be hard to admit. Good job!
Nothing to admit. Those are the facts. That's been my view for years and I've stated it on this forum many times.(and many times in debates with you!) I've never claimed otherwise.
Now - any suggestions on answers to the important questions?
-
So - you'll get no disagreement from me that the excess energy that fossil fuels have provided has meant more technology, more food production and more people -as well as more material wealth for some...
Must be hard to admit. Good job!
Nothing to admit. Those are the facts. That's been my view for years and I've stated it on this forum many times.(and many times in debates with you!) I've never claimed otherwise.
Now - any suggestions on answers to the important questions?
Sorry mtdoc, I don't have bandwidth to entertain yet another catastrophes-will-happen-unless-if-you-will-adopt-my-point-of-view.
-
So - you'll get no disagreement from me that the excess energy that fossil fuels have provided has meant more technology, more food production and more people -as well as more material wealth for some...
Must be hard to admit. Good job!
Nothing to admit. Those are the facts. That's been my view for years and I've stated it on this forum many times.(and many times in debates with you!) I've never claimed otherwise.
Now - any suggestions on answers to the important questions?
Sorry mtdoc, I don't have bandwidth to entertain yet another catastrophes-will-happen-unless-if-you-will-adopt-my-point-of-view.
Ok - as I thought. No interest in a rational discussion of the real questions that many are struggling with.
Party On!
-
It looks like China has recognized the need to cap coal consumption (http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=253473) and favors renewables and nuclear for future development. I wonder why?
Here's their goverment roadmap (http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/Documents/Events/150420-Zhongying-ChinaEnergyRoadmap-Slides.pdf). Wind plays a big part - as big as coal by 2050. I'm skeptical.
(http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bfinamore/Renewabel%20Energy.png)
Interesting study by the MIT Joint Program (http://globalchange.mit.edu/CECP/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt267.pdf) on what more realistically it might look like and how they could possibly do it without undermining economic development.
I'm skeptical it will play out this way, but we'll see.
(http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/China1-638x460.jpg)
-
I would like to invite people in favor of wind power to take a look at what happened in Germany:
There's hardly any difference and tbh they look nice. Especially when compared to having this:
(http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xd/559380817.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=F13A1F9190F00936D84469FAA5487F453B9DB0D1513BFBBC718A949AB93E79186F058A7CF4E31181)
:nearby.
Those who whine about windmills would complain even more about that ruining there view.
-
I would like to invite people in favor of wind power to take a look at what happened in Germany:
There's hardly any difference and tbh they look nice. Especially when compared to having this:
(http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xd/559380817.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=F13A1F9190F00936D84469FAA5487F453B9DB0D1513BFBBC718A949AB93E79186F058A7CF4E31181)
:nearby.
Those who whine about windmills would complain even more about that ruining there view.
There is a real difference and it is due to density. The plant you have shown is ugly, but it takes a huge number of windmills to generate the equivalent peak power, even more to generate the equivalent average power. If there is just one place that is ugly I can just not look there. That is more difficult when the answer is don't look there and there and there and ....
Personally I would prefer not to look at the windmills, but realize the benefits and am willing to accept the tradeoff. Others don't like the trade. I am OK with them. The ones I don't like are those who tout the benefits of wind power, but don't want it generated anywhere near anyplace they go.
-
The ones I don't like are those who tout the benefits of wind power, but don't want it generated anywhere near anyplace they go.
Such as the Kennedys
http://grist.org/article/capecod/ (http://grist.org/article/capecod/)
...Greenpeace USA staged a demonstration against well-known eco-activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who’s been an outspoken opponent of the proposal for a 130-turbine wind-power project in Horseshoe Shoal
-
The ones I don't like are those who tout the benefits of wind power, but don't want it generated anywhere near anyplace they go.
I agree 100%. But that type generally don't want ANY generating capacity or visible distribution network anywhere between themselves and the horizon, don't want traffic running past their house but don't want any more roads built, don't want to see their neighbours children on the street but don't want "juvenile gangs*" playing in the park, want to live near a good school but want to ban the kids playing in the schoolyard at break and lunch**, want their easy foreign holidays but never want to see a plane in the sky, and on, and on...
*i.e. more than one child.
**actually happened where I recently moved from |O
-
Usually people complain about things they never really saw/met in projects like those. @Mechanical Mance: Yes those, sorry, idiots are annoying here in germany as well. Double standards everywhere.
You won't get a trauma just from seeing a few Wind Turbines. Ok, they are not that pretty most of the time, but I personally kind of like them. Can't say much about the noise they produce though. Here in germany we got a lot of those, mainly in the north near the sea though, so not much where I live. It is substituted at this moment but in the future I think it might get more attractive to build them.
-
I was reading through this thread and saw several posts about renewables vs fossil fuel. From an operational stand point renewables can not replace fossil fuel plants in all cases. Fossil fuel plants (gas, coal) are needed to produce base load power because they can run 24/7. Renewables can't fill this role because of their intermittent nature e.g. Wind does not blow continually at a constant speed, the sun does not always shine and a hydro plant may have too much or too little water. Renewables can help to fill the need for power during peak times to offset any extra fossil fuel generation. The only other source of base load generation currently available is nuclear, and who wants that. All sources of electric generation have their own environmental impact. So how do we balance our want for power and our need to protect the environment?
-
Oh you just happened upon this thread right after joining despite the fact it is over a year old and very buried ?
You make some peoples standard case and the case depends on what your assumptions are. There are various scenario's, one includes storage, I have just started looking into this myself and storage solutions are already available that are cheaper than using the grid, I could charge up during the day and then come home and use my power instead of giving it away during the day, the battery bank with built in inverter costs a little less than the power it can store over it's life time times the current cost of electricity before we talk about price rises some already guaranteed to us when a certain nuclear plant comes on line, over budget and late. I hope by then to be fully off grid.
-
Basic problem is that climate change activism has become a kind of religion with the windturbine as its crucifix. We have to separate the engineering from the politics and the preaching if we want to see the real picture.
Leaving aside whether climate change is real, the key question is whether mass-erection of turbines over the whole planet will solve it. The best answer we can give to that, is no. Forty years of turbine building have not reduced carbon dioxide emissions at all.
They were sold to governments on the strength that mass deployment would give continuous power 'because the wind always blows somewhere' and that wind energy would be cheaper than that from fossil fuel. Neither has turned out to be the case. Denmark and Germany with the greatest deployment, have the most costly electricity of anywhere in Europe. Denmark has to rely on imported electricity when the wind doesn't blow, and that puts them at the mercy of producers who can charge whatever they like.
On average, the turbines do provide a fair proportion of our electricity supplies. However (and contrary to the promotional claims on which deployment started) that contribution is very variable. Even with nationwide deployment, the UK has seen intervals of three weeks over which wind's contribution was as near to zero as gives a damn, and two months over which it was negligible. Thus, if (as the Greens propose) we were to build a battery storage system to overcome the wind outages, it would have to supply the entire demand of a country for at least three weeks. Now, that is one tall order. Can you imagine a battery that size? Definitely won't fit in an AA holder, that's for sure.
As a hill walker I've visited quite a few windfarms, and noted that the noise problem is greatly exaggerated. Even downwind of a turbine in strong wind, it's not greatly noticeable. In fact the noise from the hydraulic oil cooler at the base of the tower is much louder than that from the blades. Early designs produced a very objectionable whine from the gearbox or generator, but the new ones seem to have that fixed.
A more serious problem than noise is sun strobing. This is very objectionable, and could even trigger epilepsy in susceptible people. It would only be a problem where houses are within a few hundred yards from the turbines though, and in certain orientations.
Hilltop installations do involve considerable damage to fragile ecosystems, in the form of roads driven in and vegetation stripped from the entire site. This may recover over time, but I can't see the operators allowing trees to grow back as that would probably affect performance by shielding the turbines. Offshore installations, meanwhile, are hideously expensive. You're basically building an offshore platform to produce only a few MW of power at best.
An issue which the promoters don't seem to have considered is that the life of a turbine is rated at about 20 years, yet the plan to solve climate change requires us to keep deploying turbines at the current rate until about 2050. By that time, the ones being erected now will have worn out and had to be replaced at least once, if not twice over. This could end-up being asymptotic, like a capacitor charging curve, where the demands of repair and replacement eventually take up all of your resources before you reach your deployment goal.
We also know that the vendors have employed dubious tactics like employing NGOs as shills to promote their products. Here's (https://web.archive.org/web/20120406212640/http://www.actionforrenewables.org/) an example of a fake 'activist' website that was actually owned by the UK windturbine installers' consortium. It's since been taken down.
So overall, whilst they're not entirely useless I do feel that they are a hyped-up product which falls short of the vendors' advertising claims. Perhaps the stupidest aspect is that our government didn't seek any contractual penalties to cover this shortfall arising. A further crazy situation is that constraint payments have to be made in respect of all wind energy which could have been provided, even though it was surplus to requirements. In high winds that amounts to (cue Dire Straits..) Why on earth they ever signed-up to such conditions, heaven knows.
So, I've tried to be objective and avoid the rants. Most of this info is available on our website.
-
The electricity price in Germany is only high for consumers and small businesses. Large consumers get rather low rates as they don't pay much for the renewables. Much of the high cost is for subsidies for old installations and especially solar. The price of electricity is rather political set in many countries - not so much a true market price. New wind turbines don't get much money any more - and they still build them. Especially new offshore wind-farms are now build essentially for future market price. They were initially rather expensive, but now seem to be competitive.
Storage is a problem in the future and will increase the costs, but there are no good alternatives. France needs quite some peak power from Germany, because their nuclear power plants can't deliver it. Batteries are not that suitable for longer time storage, but there are alternatives to this (water, gas from electricity - low efficiency, but low storage costs). Also a stronger grid can help - the UK might get peak power from Norway (with plenty of flexible hydro), just like Denmark does. Especially off shore wind is also more predictable than on shore wind and thus less storage needed. At least for the next few decades we will need some fissile energy to support storage.
At least in Germany wind gives most of the power when it is actually needed: before the installation of wind and solar power, electricity was most expensive around noon - now we tend to get a lower price at noon.
-
Unfortunately no one in government is a technical expert or understands anything about technology and so is easily duped. I keep hearing from people "someone said and it's not true that such and such" ok so that person lied, why blame the technology. Things will continue to improve and obviously wind cannot be the ony answer, to suggest that is foolish. I work "across the valley" form my most local wind farm and can see them from out office window. I often go to the window to draw water from the tea urn for my regular cuppa's, the turbines are usually always going round.
I have 1.5KW of solar panels dumped in my back garden often in the shade yet i make 30% of my annual usage. If I put them on a frame pointing at the correct angle and cut down the tree in front of them I could easily make 1/2 of my annual usage if not more, at this point a battery pack with which I would break even if electricity stays at 17p/KW looks attractive and the batteries will only get better.
Yes we need to protect from long term power shortages and we may need to rely on some older technology but we are still moving in the right direction. We are building a nuclear power plant that in todays terms will produce the most expensive electricity ever made and is likely to be built over budget and arrive later than promised. By that time the pure facts of the price of renewable may have overtaken it's capability and/or that electricity will only go up in price as the plant will be over budget. Who wants to buy electricity from nuclear at 4 times the price renewable's can deliver, and now with gas plants the price keeps going up. Over the next 5 years I can see myself going off grid, and I'm in the UK!
-
People predict the future with far more confidence than is warranted. This is true across the board of energy source advocates. It is fortunate that various people and places are pursuing a variety of strategies. Some of them will be successful. Others will be less so, and others may even prove to be disastrous. That is the description of evolution in technology. Contestants are chosen looking forward. Winners are determined by looking backwards.
Fortunately this process will answer my general concern. All of our best answers for a long term renewable energy strategy have only been deployed at a relatively small scale, and for a relatively short time. Many of the problems of existing technologies only became apparent when the scale grew and time had passed. I am sure that for some of these technologies our grand-children will be doing face plants and saying how could they have been so stupid and short sighted. Hopefully not for all of them, or at least not for some that have yet to be invented.
-
As you say it takes time to prove technologies, I sit opposite a guy at work that is a steam and pushrods guy, if it's electrical it's the devils work and he does nothing but criticise every new idea and play the industry expert when he is clueless what he is talking about and is skewed in his views, usually he will quote a renewable energy clegyman and point out the flaws and all I can say is yes, that particular person is lying but there are benefits. He expects not to replace stuff with new technology but have new technology perform miracles whilst it is in it's infancy.
I bought solar panels when I thought the price was right, I am now looking at storage but the price might not quite be right and again most storage solutions are based on feed in tariffs and are willing to waste the solar power through excessive conversion processes whilst assuring the feed in tariff holder they will not loose out as the power is metered at the panels and who gives a stuff if we put an extra step of power conversion in and waste that power, the consumer is still being paid, it's all about the money still :palm:
-
People predict the future with far more confidence than is warranted. This is true across the board of energy source advocates. It is fortunate that various people and places are pursuing a variety of strategies. Some of them will be successful.
That is true, although we are seeing a dangerous situation arise where some industry cartels are trying to stifle development of any competing products. Prime example is the disinformation campaign against shale gas, spearheaded by NGOs who are in the pay of the wind industry. Though, this has even extended to Greenpeace trying to get fusion research stopped. Basically if it's a competitor, or even a potential competitor to their product, they want it banned.
Latest manifestation is a French law banning the sale of anything BUT battery-powered cars after 2030. Nobody knows what technologies will be invented by 2030, and the implication is that the battery car manufacturers want to ensure they have no competition. This sort of thing could be extremely damaging both for the human race and for the environment, since it effectively makes it pointless to develop other, possibly better, technologies. For example fuel cells.
This kind of market-manipulation skulduggery arises whenever an industry based on government subsidies grows to the point where it can call the tune on the policies of the same government providing the subsidy.
-
People predict the future with far more confidence than is warranted. This is true across the board of energy source advocates. It is fortunate that various people and places are pursuing a variety of strategies. Some of them will be successful.
Latest manifestation is a French law banning the sale of anything BUT battery-powered cars after 2030. Nobody knows what technologies will be invented by 2030, and the implication is that the battery car manufacturers want to ensure they have no competition. This sort of thing could be extremely damaging both for the human race and for the environment, since it effectively makes it pointless to develop other, possibly better, technologies. For example fuel cells.
Hasn't the UK banned anything with a petrol or diesel engine at similar dates ? This stuff should be taken with a pinch of salt as it's a long way off and we know that 4+ governments later political will will be different. I think they are trying to respond to general concerns about emissions. You don't seem to think combustion engines are a problem. Either way we will thankfully run out of oil or it will become so expensive that electric will just take over as the market force. If I had a driveway I'd buy and electric car now but I don't so I can't charge it. Due to the regenerative braking they are vastly more efficient than combustion engine and that is just a fact of physics. I am against new technologies being positively discriminated, lots of people in the UK are making a mint of us tax payers with feed in tariffs when all we had to do was wait for the technology to mature and come down in price as it has. I think the government should have done more to protect the price of a feed in tariff but instead they now only force energy companies to pay so little assuming they are paying that much that it's not economically viable. FIT's should be set at the market wholesale rate, and I doubt that is 1.67p/Kw when I pay 15+p/Kw
-
Actually the French law is ideal - as long as everyone doesn't join them. Here in the US we had a similar thing where California passed a mandate along these lines, with a due date of around 2005 as I recall. It caused intense development activity and was a prime driver for the EV-1. But time showed that it wasn't ripe yet and the mandate was modified and then effectively died.
Having countries try different directions is just what I was talking about. There will be loser and winners and eventually the winners will be copied.
The things I am worried about are much more subtle. Wind generators for example take only a tiny fraction of the total energy from the air mass and everyone assumes that it is negligible. But is it? If you look at the plots of energy radiated to space with a pre-industrial atmosphere and our current CO2 enhanced atmosphere the differences are tiny. Same thing goes for large scale solar. When we pave the equatorial deserts of the world with solar cells, reducing their albedo by a fraction and shipping that energy north to the industrial zones will that have measurable impact on weather patterns? What byproduct of large scale manufacture of Lithium ion batteries will turn out to be un-manageable?
-
Again politicians haven't a clue what they are doing because they took funnily enough politics degrees or business ones which don't teach you about technology. I'm not sure what you are saying about past and present levels of CO2 but often subtle changes have a large effect, few systems are linear in response.
-
I was reading through this thread and saw several posts about renewables vs fossil fuel. From an operational stand point renewables can not replace fossil fuel plants in all cases. Fossil fuel plants (gas, coal) are needed to produce base load power because they can run 24/7. Renewables can't fill this role because of their intermittent nature e.g. Wind does not blow continually at a constant speed, the sun does not always shine and a hydro plant may have too much or too little water. Renewables can help to fill the need for power during peak times to offset any extra fossil fuel generation. The only other source of base load generation currently available is nuclear, and who wants that. All sources of electric generation have their own environmental impact. So how do we balance our want for power and our need to protect the environment?
What you said :-+ :-+
I have an acquaintance working for an utility. They are investing in renewable energy, but at least they do have a very clear understanding that renewables cannot support on its own the base load. It would be foolish otherwise.
The strategy they have chosen is to add quick-starting gas turbines to support the renewable generators.
The advantage of a gas turbine is that they may be divided in smaller sections and don't require the immense investment a thermal plant all at once.
Having said that, it does increase significantly the total investment. Part of that investment goes to the actual renewables, the other part to the standby gas turbines.
-
No renewables are not always going to work, think of an electric tractor, no regenerative breaking sitting in a field running a piece of machinery.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
-
I want to bitch about FIT's, basically the technology they apply to wind, solar, chp are all mature and should not require subsidy particularly as it is added to everybody else's energy bills. Most of all I hate the fact it was guaranteed for such stupid lengths of time (25 years). By my reckoning if a piece of technology cannot become self supporting within 5 years it's not worth proceeding with and as for lumbering everybody else with ever increasing energy prices to support it :palm: Another piece of political junk were being lumbered with is so called smart meters, I have heard so much rubbish about what they are going to do for us I find it hard to understand even politicians being taken in, it's actually a money saving scheme for the utilities (save on meter readers) but were gonna pay for it. Now don't get me going on politicians and batteries :rant:
-
Yes I don't like feed in tariffs, or rather not what we currently have. I think that if I send energy onto the grid I should get the same wholesale rate as the power is traded at, I know it won't be what I pay as a consumer and certainly not the stupid 3x what everyone else was promised. All I'd ask is the going rate and be happy to buy it back at the going consumer rate. Instead I will be pushed to install my own batteries when they become viable. I also don't agree with the fixed price guaranteed to EDF to run a nuclear power station, again the market has been fixed.
-
Yes I don't like feed in tariffs, or rather not what we currently have. I think that if I send energy onto the grid I should get the same wholesale rate as the power is traded at, I know it won't be what I pay as a consumer and certainly not the stupid 3x what everyone else was promised. All I'd ask is the going rate and be happy to buy it back at the going consumer rate. Instead I will be pushed to install my own batteries when they become viable. I also don't agree with the fixed price guaranteed to EDF to run a nuclear power station, again the market has been fixed.
You're a drop in the ocean, they don't want to setup a complex metering and billing structure for your small number of kWh per day. The wholesale price is well known:
http://www.energybrokers.co.uk/electricity/historic-price-data-graph.htm (http://www.energybrokers.co.uk/electricity/historic-price-data-graph.htm)
averaging around 4-5p/kWh but it goes above as high as 50p/kWh in extreme conditions and down under 2p/kWh. If you start moving enough power then you can get access to the wholesale market, once smart meters are available widely it will be possible to create "virtual" plant operators aggregating many small solar installs into a large enough entity to trade on such terms but you need an extremely cheap way to account for all the power flows correlated to the market pricing to do this.
-
Again politicians haven't a clue what they are doing because they took funnily enough politics degrees or business ones which don't teach you about technology. I'm not sure what you are saying about past and present levels of CO2 but often subtle changes have a large effect, few systems are linear in response.
Stated simply, it appears likely that our climate is changing due to increased CO2 levels. The widely quoted greenhouse effect is the cause. When dumbed down for the popular press it is made to sound as if we are throwing a down quilt over the earth. When you look at the actual data it is more like changing the thread count in the existing blanket from 400 to 401. Not something that most people would panic over.
Now, in light of that explanation, think of the negligible effects of wind turbines on atmospheric flows, or the effects of solar farms on heat distribution. It has taken years of study and modelling to come up with our current incomplete understanding of the effects of changing CO2 levels. It will probably take a similar level of time and effort to answer similar questions about "clean" energy.
-
Same thing goes for large scale solar. When we pave the equatorial deserts of the world with solar cells, reducing their albedo by a fraction and shipping that energy north to the industrial zones will that have measurable impact on weather patterns?
Measurable? Possibly. Significant? No.
Covering only 0.5% of land area with 15% efficient PV panels would produce power equivalent to annual world needs. (https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/12/wind-fights-solar/) And they would not all be located in equatorial deserts.
That is not to say that PV alone can or will ever fully replace fossil fuels (it can't and won't for several reasons) but there is no basis form arguing that if it did, that it would have a some sort of significant impact on weather patterns. Similarly, large wind farms, while having small local effects, would have negligible effects on global weather. Practically speaking we'd never realistically even be able to approach the amount of installed wind needed to fully replace fossil fuels (see link above).
A combination of wind and solar could replace a large percentage of current fossil fuel based electricity production but IMHO it is unlikely that it ever will.
-
I've met with quite a few politicians and basically they are nowhere near as dumb as the public seem to think. In fact, most are highly intelligent. The issue is that no-one can know everything about all subjects, so in order to form policies on issues they don't they have the expertise to tackle themselves, they have to rely on advice from various research committees.
Now, for politicians it is mostly a no-no to have business interests which would sway their decisions toward benefiting themselves at the expense of the country. However, there is nothing to stop the research bodies they rely on from having such interests, and especially in the energy market above all others, that is where the problem lies.
Though, there have been a couple of rather scandalous cases of UK energy ministers having personal interests in wind energy companies. This should not have been allowed, and yet it was. Not sure why. In almost all similar cases the offending politico would have been given the Order of the Size 10.
-
In my area of the U.S. some of the personal renewable systems have been marketed as being able to supply your needs and still have capacity to sell back to the utility so that you get a check instead of a bill each month. Some people have assumed that when they install these systems that they will sell power back at the same rate as what they buy it for. I don't know anyone personally who has installed one of these but I wonder after you add up the installation cost and the life span of the equipment versus the actual power produced where is the break even point? These consumer based systems can also cause issues with the utility with load balancing since they are typically single phase units and are relatively far from the load.
-
You're a drop in the ocean, they don't want to setup a complex metering and billing structure for your small number of kWh per day. The wholesale price is well known:
http://www.energybrokers.co.uk/electricity/historic-price-data-graph.htm (http://www.energybrokers.co.uk/electricity/historic-price-data-graph.htm)
averaging around 4-5p/kWh but it goes above as high as 50p/kWh in extreme conditions and down under 2p/kWh. If you start moving enough power then you can get access to the wholesale market, once smart meters are available widely it will be possible to create "virtual" plant operators aggregating many small solar installs into a large enough entity to trade on such terms but you need an extremely cheap way to account for all the power flows correlated to the market pricing to do this.
[/quote]
Indeed, but like you say a system can be setup. With a smart meter or other metering device that reports back automatically it is a small matter to give credit when you export and debit when you consume, you pay the balance at the end of the month. Yes it would be complicated to do do one individual and not worth it but for thousands of customers it's worth it but then the big energy companies want to sell power not buy it. sadly with a privatised energy system only government policy can drive policy and change.