Page 1 of 78 1 2 3 ... 77 78 >
Topic Options
#1119754 - 12/08/2012 18:24 The Alternative Energy Scam?
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
To start this thread off;

From the UK Telegraph ; Christopher Booker

The great wind delusion has hijacked our energy policy
Quote:
The command of Britain's electricity supply has fallen into dangerous hands


Quote:
Anyone impressed by the efficient way in which Britain has organised the Olympic Games might consider the stark contrast provided by the shambles of our national energy policy – wholly focused as it is on the belief that we can somehow keep our lights on by building tens of thousands more wind turbines within eight years. At one point last week, Britain’s 3,500 turbines were contributing 12 megawatts (MW) to the 38,000MW of electricity we were using. (The Neta website, which carries official electricity statistics, registered this as “0.0 per cent”).
It is 10 years since I first pointed out here how crazy it is to centre our energy policy on wind. It was pure wishful thinking then and is even more obviously so now, when the Government in its latest energy statement talks of providing, on average, 12,300MW of power from “renewables” by 2020.
Everything about this is delusional. There is no way we could hope to build more than a fraction of the 30,000 turbines required. As the windless days last week showed, we would have to build dozens of gas-fired power stations just to provide back-up for all the times when the wind is not blowing at the right speed. But, as more and more informed observers have been pointing out, the ministers and officials of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) seem to live in a bubble of unreality, without any practical grasp of how electricity is made, impervious to rational argument and driven by an obsession that can only end in our computer-dependent economy grinding to a halt.
The latest attempt to get them to face reality is by Prof Gordon Hughes, a former senior adviser on energy to the World Bank, now a professor of economics at Edinburgh, whose evidence to the Commons committee on energy and climate change has now been published on the website of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. His most shocking finding is that the pursuit of our Climate Change Act target – to reduce Britain’s CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 – would cost us all £124 billion by 2020, or £5,000 for every household in the land: not just to build tens of thousands of absurdly subsidised wind turbines, but also for the open-cycle gas-fired power stations needed to provide back-up. To guarantee the same amount of power from combined-cycle gas-fired plants would cost £13 billion, barely a tenth as much.
cont;


Top
#1119757 - 12/08/2012 18:40 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
From Germany's "Spiegel on line" [ 18 / Jan /2012 ]

Re-Evaluating Germany's Blind Faith in the Sun
Quote:
The costs of subsidizing solar electricity have exceeded the 100-billion-euro mark in Germany, but poor results are jeopardizing the country's transition to renewable energy. The government is struggling to come up with a new concept to promote the inefficient technology in the future.

&

The only thing that's missing at the moment is sunshine. For weeks now, the 1.1 million solar power systems in Germany have generated almost no electricity. The days are short, the weather is bad and the sky is overcast.
As is so often the case in winter, all solar panels more or less stopped generating electricity at the same time. To avert power shortages, Germany currently has to import large amounts of electricity generated at nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic. To offset the temporary loss of solar power, grid operator Tennet resorted to an emergency backup plan, powering up an old oil-fired plant in the Austrian city of Graz.

Solar energy has gone from being the great white hope, to an impediment, to a reliable energy supply. Solar farm operators and homeowners with solar panels on their roofs collected more than €8 billion ($10.2 billion) in subsidies in 2011, but the electricity they generated made up only about 3 percent of the total power supply, and that at unpredictable times.

The distribution networks are not designed to allow tens of thousands of solar panel owners to switch at will between drawing electricity from the grid and feeding power into it. Because there are almost no storage options, the excess energy has to be destroyed at substantial cost. German consumers already complain about having to pay the second-highest electricity prices in Europe.

&
A Massive Money Pit

Until now, Merkel had consistently touted the environmental sector's "opportunities for exports, development, technology and jobs." But now even members of her own staff are calling it a massive money pit.
New numbers issued by the pro-industry Rhine-Westphalia Institute for Economic Research (RWI) will only add fuel to the fire. The experts calculated the additional costs to consumers after more solar systems were connected to the grid than in any other previous month in December. Under Germany's Renewable Energy Law, each new system qualifies for 20 years of subsidies. A mountain of future payment obligations is beginning to take shape in front of consumers' eyes.

According to the RWI, the solar energy systems connected to the grid in 2011 alone will cost electricity customers about €18 billion in subsidy costs over the next 20 years. "The demand for subsidies is growing and growing," says RWI expert Manuel Frondel. If all commitments to pay subsidies so far are added together, Frondel adds, "we have already exceeded the €100 billion level."[ ed; AUD$116 billion ]

The RWI also expects the green energy surcharge on electricity bills to go up again soon. It is currently 3.59 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity, a number the German government had actually pledged to cap at 3.5 cents. But because of the most recent developments, RWI expert Frondel predicts that the surcharge will soon increase to 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour. For the average family, this would amount to an additional charge of about €200 a year, in addition to the actual cost of electricity. Solar energy has the potential to become the most expensive mistake in German environmental policy

Top
#1119760 - 12/08/2012 18:57 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
From Spain;
A well known 2008 University study. Spain has a very high renewable energy component in it's power supplies.
It now also has an official rate of 25% unemployment with the youth unemployment probably approaching 50%.

Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: LESSONS FROM THE SPANISH RENEWABLES BUBBLE.

Quote:
5. Despite its hyper-aggressive (expensive and extensive) “green jobs” policies it appears that Spain likely has created a surprisingly low number of jobs, two-thirds of which came in construction, fabrication and installation, one quarter in administrative positions, marketing and projects engineering, and just one out of ten jobs has been created at the more permanent level of actual operation and maintenance of the renewable sources of electricity.

6. This came at great financial cost as well as cost in terms of jobs destroyed elsewhere in the economy.

7. The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.
8. The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the
destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created.

9. Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and employment levels in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing, beverage and tobacco industries.

10. Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.

11. These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources.

12. The total over-cost – the amount paid over the cost that would result from buying the electricity generated by the renewable power plants at the market price - that has been incurred from 2000 to 2008 (adjusting by 4% and calculating its net present value [NPV] in 2008), amounts to 7,918.54 million Euros (appx. $10 billion USD)

13. The total subsidy spent and committed (NPV adjusted by 4%) to these three renewable sources amounts to 28,671 million euros ($36 billion USD).

14. The price of a comprehensive electricity rate (paid by the end consumer) in Spain would have to be increased 31% to being able to repay the historic debt generated by this rate deficit mainly produced by the subsidies to renewables, according to Spain’s energy regulator.

15. Spanish citizens must therefore cope with either an increase of electricity rates or increased taxes (and public deficit), as will the U.S. if it follows Spain’s model.

Top
#1119763 - 12/08/2012 19:26 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
We pay to put them up!
We pay to clean them up!
We, the tax payers pay and pay and pay!

This is the future for Australia's alternative energy scams.



There are dozens of wind farms scattered around the Western rim of the Mojave Desert near Tehachapi pass. There are over 5,000 wind turbines in the area thanks to the wind rush of the 1970s and 1980s.
Many companies have come and gone, been bought, or gone belly-up. Some of the hundreds of turbines not spinning have been derelict now for decades. There is no law in Kern County that requires removal of broken or abandoned wind turbines, and as a result, the Tehachapi Pass area is an eerie mix of healthy, active wind farms and a wind turbine graveyard/junkyard

Top
#1121377 - 18/08/2012 13:29 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: ROM]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
How much electricity do solar and wind make on a global scale? Answer: “Not much”

Simple numbers are hard to get, so when Anton Lang pointed me at the EIA site (U.S. Energy Information Administration), I wanted to give everyone the straight answer to the question: just how much electricity do renewables make on a global scale? The EIA has the only database in the world with a this much accuracy.

The answer is that 80% of our electricity comes from the fossil fuels and nuclear that the Greens despise. Hydroelectricity, with all its pluses and minuses, produces a serious 16% of the total. But all the vanity renewables bundled together make about 3.5% of the total.

Wind power is a major global industry but it’s only making in the order of 1.4% of total electricity. And solar is so pathetically low that it needs to be bundled with “tidal and wave” power to even rate 0.1% (after rounding up).

For all the fuss and money, if the world’s solar powered units all broke tonight, it would not dent global electricity production a jot.

No one connected to a grid would notice.


JoNova
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1121383 - 18/08/2012 14:01 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: snafu]
Seabreeze Offline
Weatherzone Moderator

Registered: 18/09/2005
Posts: 10062
Loc: South West Rocks, NSW
Calling it 'the Alternative Energy Scam' is a bit dramatic. I don't think the vast majority of people would seriously consider wind and solar as viable alternatives to the current main sources of power production (at least not in the world we currently live in).

Should all funding for wind/solar power generation/technology and also investment in other experimental alternative energy technology be completely abandoned?
_________________________
South West Rocks, NSW Mid North Coast:
May 2017 Rainfall: 111.8mm (May Avg. 131.5mm) // May 2017 Raindays: 10 (May Avg. 11.2 raindays)
Year-to-date Rainfall: 990.8mm (Jan-May Avg. 802.1mm) // Year-to-date Raindays: 80 (Jan-May Avg. 67.0 raindays)

Top
#1121386 - 18/08/2012 14:14 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: snafu]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
That Jonova post is using out of date info from back in 2009 and I like how she misleads the readers by not giving the whole picture on China's coal fired plants. At the same time that they are bringing new ones online they are removing the old inefficient ones. She fails to mention that.


Anyway, this place needs some balance...

Favourable policy and regulatory environment on renewable energy will raise generation and penetration

Saturday, May 26, 2012, was yet another summer weekend and passed off uneventfully. However, unnoticed by most, an interesting media report, Germany's record 40% solar weekend, highlighted that against the country's peak electric load of around 50 gigawatt (GW) - 1 GW = 1,000 MW - as much as 22 GW was generated from solar energy on that day.

A remarkable event, more so because almost all of Germany receives irradiation less than 1,300 kWh/m {+2} (most parts of India receive irradiation levels of more than 1,500 kWh/m {+2}).

The period from 2006 to 2011 witnessed a sharp growth in renewable energy technologies with solar photovoltaic (PV) operating capacity increasing at an average of 58% annually. By the end of 2011, renewable energy capacities clocked 1,360 GW, representing more than 25% of the total global power generating capacity of around 5,360 GW.

Renewable capacities supplied an estimated 20% of global electricity (15% hydro and 5% non-hydro renewable). Also, of the 208 GW new electric capacity added globally in 2011, almost half was contributed by renewables.

Notwithstanding the global economic downturn, investment in the renewable sector grew by 17%, reaching a new record of $257 billion in 2011.

The March 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan further propelled nations to move away from nuclear energy and countries such as Germany plan to end the use of nuclear energy by 2022 and increase its targets for share of renewables in electricity.

Denmark set for itself an ambitious target of 50% electricity to be generated from wind by 2020 and an astounding 100% from renewables by 2050. Environmentally-progressive states such as California in US set a target of 33% electricity from renewables by 2030.

Saudi Arabia, with 20% of the world's oil reserves, is also targeting renewables. The UN General Assembly has declared 2012 as the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All, with a target to double the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix by 2030.

Policy support provided by governments to promote renewable include Preferential/Feed-In Tariffs (FIT) and/or Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)/Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO). Of the 109 countries that have policy instruments to support renewables, 65 employ FITs and 18 have specified RPSs. Few countries have put in place a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) mechanism. India has adopted a unique path of renewable energy development that brings together all the policy and regulatory drivers practised globally and had adopted the Preferential Tariff, the RPO as well as the REC mechanisms.

India has set for itself an ambitious target under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and seeks to increase the percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources from 5% in 2009-10 by 1% every year to reach 15% by 2019-20.

Of the 200 GW electricity generation capacity that exists in the country, around 25 GW is based on renewables: 17 GW wind, 3 GW biomass, 3 GW small hydro of less than 25 MW size and 1 GW solar. Renewables contribute around 6% of electricity generated in the country. During the 11th Five-Year Plan period (2007-12), the country added around 55 GW of conventional capacity and around 15 GW of renewable capacity.

This placed India at fifth position globally in terms of capacity addition in renewables (after China, US, Germany and Italy). India plans to add another 90 GW of conventional power in the 12th Plan period - equivalent to 1,500 MW per month - and 31 GW of renewable capacity during the period. A study by the Forum of Regulators (FOR), a collegiate body of the central and state electricity regulators, assesses that more than 41 GW of renewable capacity can be added in the 12th Plan period.

India finds itself favourably positioned in terms of resources to expand its renewable capacities. Most parts of the country receive irradiation levels above 1,500 kWh/m {+2}, which go up to 2,200 kWh/m {+2} in the western states of Rajasthan and Gujarat. The country has adequate solar as well as wind potential.

While currently available estimates project the wind potential to be 50 GW, a recent study estimates the potential to be upward of 400 GW. The small hydro potential is estimated at 15 GW.


_________________________

Top
#1121390 - 18/08/2012 14:28 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: CeeBee]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Now if you took the time to read 'that JoNova' article, you would have also noticed:

The figures here are the most recent whole year figures available. Some figures for 2010 are not listed on the EIA site yet. Even though there is more solar and wind power capacity now, China has been adding a 2GW coal fired station every week or two, so I’m led to believe that the latest pie graph would not look altogether different.

Also, if you take the time to read the comments you will also see some current 'up-to-date' figures from Great Britain.

Again, 'Team CeeBee', you do not read the fine print.

Also, taken from your own 'recent' article:

Of the 200 GW electricity generation capacity that exists in the country, around 25 GW is based on renewables: 17 GW wind, 3 GW biomass, 3 GW small hydro of less than 25 MW size and 1 GW solar. Renewables contribute around 6% of electricity generated in the country. During the 11th Five-Year Plan period (2007-12), the country added around 55 GW of conventional capacity and around 15 GW of renewable capacity.

Where do you suppose the other 94% of energy required will come from?
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1121394 - 18/08/2012 14:49 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: snafu]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Are you sure you don't need to go to SpecSavers?
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1121396 - 18/08/2012 14:52 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: Seabreeze]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
After some 25 to 30 years of very substantial public funding ; ie taxpayer's funding as in probably from some estimates ;getting up close to a half a Trillion dollars [ $500 billion ] of public funding right across the whole western world and with that massively subsidised wind and solar still completely unable to compete against the conventional coal, and gas fired power generators then continuing the public funding and demanding that public funding continue becomes a scam.

Germany has spent $130 billion dollars alone on subsidising solar energy over the last few years.
Result; some of the highest power costs in the world.
Plus 800.000 german households now cut off from the power grid as they can't pay for their past use or can't afford the cost of the power.
Plus ; at the peak of German power needs during the last winter, solar after $130 billion dollars of public subsidies, generated just .3% of Germany's power needs at it's peak.

For the UK a similar social disaster and situation reigns as the UK relies on the alternative wind power.
The UK is now cutting subsidies to wind and solar dramatically and some [ most ] wind and power companies claim they will be bankrupted unless they get their public subsidy fix.

None of the above includes the much higher cost of power created by the legislated requirement that the coal and gas generators must pay for the power the wind and solar output regardless in these countries.
In fact only very recently as there were very strong winds right across the UK, the british government paid out many millions of pounds to wind generators to shut down their turbines as the energy could'nt be used above a certain amount as it destroyed the grids stability.
The UK wind energy companies were paid to stop producing power, ridiculous and tax sapping stupidity that this is.

I am only posting on the publicly funded tax payer subsidies to these wind and solar companies.
Not on the legislated requirement that the coal and gas generators have to pay for the power from the alternative energy companies at rates two and three times what they can generate power for.

Germany is now frantically building a number of brand new coal fired power stations but you won't hear about that.
Their politicians are running very scared indeed as if there are major power failures and cuts during this coming winter, the already volatile social unrest and high unemployment could explode into very serious and violent troubles.

In Spain ; 25% official unemployment, much higher youth unemployment and the highest level of alternative energy in the world
And one job created in the alternative energy system means the loss of some 3 jobs or more in the rest of the economy due to the incredible power costs

Read the John Muir Trust report on the UK wind energy power generation ; Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation
The Spanish report. Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources


If they want to privately fund such alternative power generation technologies then go for it.
I* would support research into algal oil production but again probably not necessary as the discovery of truly immense deposits of shale gas across the world and the technology to extract it has probably given the world another couple of hundred years of energy supplies.
This plus new oil finds make alternative energy production a very doubtful economic and even an economy sapping and luxury method of supplying our society with it's energy needs

Don't demand that the public continue to fund something such as wind and solar with their totally unpredictable and highly variable supply of energy, sources of energy generation that have never indicated any signs of ever becoming efficient power generation technologies that can on their own supply the very steady regular, guaranteed energy in the amounts that are now needed to keep our industry and society functioning.

Top
#1121398 - 18/08/2012 15:13 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: ROM]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637


ROM - got shares in oil and coal by any chance hmmm?? grin
_________________________

Top
#1121400 - 18/08/2012 15:30 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: CeeBee]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14146
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics


"Renewable Energy Schemes" are rorts. The only people making any money or deriving any benefit are those who selling them. Joe Public (that is those who actually pay taxes - not CB) gets screwed at least 3 times for every turbine built,
(a)the planning, purchasing and building,
(b) the running at a loss and
(c) the eventual removal of yet another environmental white elephant.
No power of any quanity or quality will be produced but you will disrup the local citizens, wild life and pizzoff a heck of a lot of people for no gain.
_________________________
202mm April 2017
Best 156mm 19/5/17
2017 Total 688mm
2016 Total 649mm
2015 Total 375mm
2014 Total 1032mm
2013 Total 715mm







Top
#1121406 - 18/08/2012 16:17 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: SBT]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6033
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
It may come as a surprise to you CB, but some people are not interested in making big money from weather and climate related issues!

Top
#1121460 - 18/08/2012 21:15 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: bd bucketingdown]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
A submission to the British House of Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change.

HC 517 The Economics of Wind Power

Memorandum submitted by W R B Bowie (WIND 59)

Wind power saves little or no CO2 and other Green House Gases


The fundamental argument in favour of wind power is that despite its very high cost, it produces less CO2 etc. than conventional power plants. This is, however, completely incorrect. Wind saves little or no CO2.

Wind is an intermittent source of power that cannot be ‘turned on’ when required like conventional sources of power. ERCOT of Texas says that they only consider wind power as reliable source of supply for about 8.7% of its name plate capacity. The E.On wind report of 2005 is more pessimistic saying studies show,

"Wind energy currently contributes to the secure production capacity of the system by providing 8% of its installed capacity" and also that this guaranteed supply will, "fall continuously to around 4%" as winds share of the generating capacity rises up to 2020. As an example at 17.30 on 7th Dec 2010 the UK wind fleet of 5200 MW produced just 300 MW; a load factor of 5.8%. At the same time both Germany and Denmark had lower load factors; 3% % 4%

When plotted in a graph the rises and falls of wind’s capacity looks like a comb! Rapid shifts in power are quite unsuited to the user’s requirements. Because of the erratic nature of wind power, almost without exception, the wind power providers E.On, Centrica, Scottish Power etc say that it is essential that wind has ‘back-up’ from conventional sources of power that can rapidly be turned on & off, to match fluctuations in the wind . Whilst they are agreed ‘back-up is needed, there is some latitude in the estimates of the minimum ‘back-up’ needed. Dr Paul Golby CEO of E.On UK, says 90% whilst Mr Rupert Steele of Scottish Power says, "Thirty Gigawatts of wind maybe requires twenty-five GW of backup"

As a consequence of the need for power to match demand, ‘back-up’ plants are run start/stop to match the wind’s fluctuations. We might like use hydro, but UK has insufficient hydro resources, so the ‘back-up’ is probably a fossil fuel plant; usually gas. An open cycle gas turbine [OCGT] is effectively a jet engine, and a combined cycle gas turbine [CCGT] is this jet engine in which the heat from the combustion is collected and used to make steam to drive a secondary generator. The CCGT produces about 0.4 of a ton of CO2 per MWh. This is 50% more efficient than the OCGT that may produce same amount of power but uses more fuel and this results in about 0.6 ton of CO2 per MWh. When CCGT machines are used to ‘back-up’ wind power the gas plants are switched on & off [to match the wind] often do not reach a sufficient temperature to make steam and thus operate as if they were OCGT plants. Knowing this some powers suppliers just use OCGT as ‘back-up’ to wind.

Since the wind turbines only operate at about 25% of their rated or name-plate capacity* the ‘back-up’ has to supply the remainder, of 75%. Since, as shown above, a gas turbine operating stop/start produces approx. 0.6T/MWh the average is [75% x .6=] 0.45ton per MWh. This is more CO2 [and SO2, Nox etc] than would have been produced by an efficient CCGT working full time; 0.4ton per MWh. On the attached sheet I have shown this together with the costs of generating electricity by wind power. My sheet paraphrases the situation but detailed studies showing little or no saving in CO2 etc as a result of wind power have been produced by Prof G Hughes of Edinburgh University ["Why is wind power so expensive?"]. A Dutch study by Udo, de Groot and le Pair comes to similar conclusions as does the BENTEK report for Colorado and Texas,

My sheet also shows the cost of wind power vis à vis a CCGT plant. The result is that the cost of wind power is at least double the cost of power from CCGT. Other UK studies, such as those by the RAE or Mott MacDonald have similar results, as do studies from the USA. Other conventional types of electrical generation e.g. coal &nuclear result in similar costs per MWh to cost from gas. A very thorough Paper produced by Mr Colin Gibson formerly Power Network Director with the National Grid in Oct last year shows an even larger discrepancy between the cost of power form conventional sources and wind [ x3 onshore & x4 offshore]. See IESIS Glasgow.G2 9DS.

Since wind power does nothing to reduce CO2 and GHG emissions and costs at least twice as much as other sources of power, what on earth are we using it for? Why damage industrial competitiveness and put millions into fuel poverty for no benefit to climate?

William R B Bowie

C.Eng, BSc, MICE, FCIHT. The Old Iron Mill, Ironmills Road, Dalkeith EH22 1JP

Top
#1121514 - 19/08/2012 10:27 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: ROM]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
I've posted this elsewhere, but this is the perfect place for it.

Supply and Demand
Graph displays current system demand plotted against forecast demand and available resources.

California ISO - Todays Outlook


Edited by snafu (19/08/2012 10:29)
Edit Reason: Insert correct link
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1121523 - 19/08/2012 11:33 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: snafu]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
And from Mike's post in the "Interesting news" thread

The Dutch have along with the Danes have possibly the most experience with alternative energy, wind in this case, as has anybody.
As I have noted in other posts, there is a very strong degree of disillusionment setting in about alternative energy, particularly when a full scale analysis is done on the supposed CO2 savings against the actual generation of totally reliable power.
With Governments everywhere starting to feel or well into very serious economic problems, tax income falling, gross inefficiencies appearing because of past governmental interference, infrastructure demands, aging populations, hordes of foreigners coming in and demanding the same benefits as the locals enjoy and very importantly, the poorest no longer able to afford power, the alarming and staggeringly serious in a modern compassionate society, the choice of "eat or heat" for the poor and aged, the prospects of the continuation of the previous incredibly high subsidies and the continued legislation that requires conventional power generators to buy alternative energy output at exobitant rates making the essential energy that civilisation relies on unaffordable for many as well as much industry and therefore employment is fast coming to an end.

In times not far ahead as Governments refuse to continue with the immense subsidies to alternative energy companies, as the legislated requirement for conventional power generators to buy all the output of the alternative energy generators at grossly inflated prices are wound back by governments, a move that is already underway in Germany, Denmark, the
UK Ireland, Spain and etc, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth as the investors in alternative energy find their investments are probably worthless.

For myself, it couldn't happen to a better bunch of wealthy taxpayer scammers.

FACTS ABOUT THE SAVINGS OF FOSSIL FUEL BY WINDTURBINES IN THE NETHERLANDS.

From this above report and analysis

Conclusion and outlook
Adding it all up, one must conclude that under the present conditions in the Netherlands a 100 MW (Megawatt) 'name plate' capacity wind development produces on average 23 MW because of the capacity factor. 4,6 MW (20%) of this has to be subtracted from the final net result because of initial energy investments.
From the actual Statline production figures we know that 38% of this 23 MW = 8,74 MW represents the actual fossil fuel and CO2 savings. But from this figure we need to subtract the amount of energy invested in the construction works: 4,6 MW.

The net total of fuel saving electricity provided by our windturbines therefor is 8,74 - 4,6 = 4,14 MW on average over the year. That is ~4% of the installed capacity.

It makes wind developments a Mega money pit with virtually no merit in terms of the intended goal of CO2 emission reduction or fossil fuel saving.

What is going to happen next?
The current plan is to extend wind capacity to 8 GW onshore and 4 GW offshore.
Presently wind capacity is about 15% of the domestic electricity consumption. If the capacity exceeds 20% we enter into a new phase in which curtailment sets in: there wil be periods in which the grid simply cannot absorb the supply.
This situation already exists in Denmark and Ireland. Then we shall see a further dramatic decrease of the fuel-replacing effectiveness.
In a previous study (6), we used a model in which the most favorable scenario had a wind penetration of 20%. We found that in that case savings were already negative, which means that wind developments actually caused an increase in fossil fuel consumption.
The present study based on actual data shows that we are well on the way to reach that stage.

Nieuwegein,
August 15, 2012.

Top
#1121547 - 19/08/2012 15:26 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
And it just seems to keep right on coming!

There is now very obviously a huge rethink under way in Europe over the so called alternative energies as commentators across the spectrum come to the realisation that the cost of alternative energy systems and the rorts involved are far, far higher in both social and economic costs than anybody ever envisaged could be the case.
And then they are weighing those costs against the supposed benefits of lower CO2 emissions and finding that there are almost no benefits but the society and industry crippling costs remain.

Our very, very slow and very obstinate political learners in Canberra and there are some also in some state capitals, just don't seem to getting the message.
If they don't and soon then the political clean out will be even more disastrous let alone their even lower, very unflattering place in history, if that's at all possible with the present political, bureaucratic and academic mob.

Even a few, a very few, of the enviro mob are starting to change sides in Germany from supporters of alternative energy to opponents.
The new accusations starting to surface is that the enviros in Europe are now in it for the money as supporters of the alternative energy scammers.

The similar wave of opposition is now getting under way in the UK as the locals are now getting up in arms against the wind energy companies encroaching on their turf by using high powered and heavy handed legal means to beat down local opposition to their wind turbine farms.
The British High Court has reversed it self recently and given the local communities the right to protect their own environment from the gross scenic and environmental destruction wrought by avaricious alternative wind energy scammers.

From P. Gosselin's "NoTricksZone"

Financial Times Deutschland Talks Openly About “Germany’s Dirty Wind Energy Secret”

Quote:
Horst von Buttlar writes at the online Financial Times Deutschland a piece called: Wind Energy: The Dirty Secret of the Energy Transformation.

In the aftermath of Fukushima and Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, Germany rushed madly, in a state of collective hysteria, to alternative energies, ignoring all warnings that it would cost a bundle and wouldn’t work. Now with the big bills rolling in, the country is beginning to show some signs of returning to a little sanity.

Von Buttlar in the Financial Times begins his piece:

Slowly it is beginning to dawn: The energy transformation is not only stalling, but it is also is exposing the well-hidden secret that it has long been a huge redistribution program from the bottom up.”

He writes that it’s about large landowners and farmers parking Ferraris between their tractors, or a famous law firm investing an 8-digit sum in a solar park with the state guaranteeing a handsome profit. It’s about a Bavarian farmer with hundreds of solar panels on his barn’s roof laughing his way to the bank: “That’s 20,000 euros per month.”

The German socialist and green parties used to be about protecting the little guy, making sure that their money and assets don’t get transferred from the bottom to the top. Today, however, they’re making sure that it does get transferred to the top! It just happens many Greens and socialist honchos are at the top reaping the benefits of political sellout.

Slowly but surely, it is all coming out. Von Buttlar writes:

… a few days ago the Consumer Protection Agency complained about high electricity costs: In 2007 every household paid on average 35 euros for alternative energies. Beginning in 2013, when the share in the costs rises from 3.5 cents to 5 cents, that number will jump to 185 euros.”

Von Buttlar reminds us that many Germans still accept this and view it as a “good cause” – a position he calls naive.

We should at least be honest – these are times when armies of corporate representatives and “advisers” from Enercon, Repower, or the numerous obscure solar companies are invading the countryside. It is not about a lofty objective or a good cause. That’s the story that gets told at town meetings. No, it’s about money. More precisely said: it’s about lots of money for a very few – money that is being divided up between plant operators, investors, leasing companies and manufacturers. 16.4 billion euros was the energy feed-in allocation in 2011. In the coming year it is going to be 20 billion.”[ edit; AUD$23.5 billion annually and rising ]

This is the reality that I hope my friends in Vermont are going to wake the hell up to – soon. The whole thing is a financial scam. And it is not going to have a bit of impact on the weather.

Not only is it going to cost you lots of money, but, as you are now painfully witnessing in Vermont, it is wreaking environmental damage of catastrophic dimensions. Your mountains and landscape are being devoured by industry. How do you like the face of climate protection now?

Citizens are not only going to be paying a lot more for power, but they are paying an awful environmental price right now. Site for 1 of 21 turbines now being installed on Lowell Mountain in Vermont. Photo source: Mountain Talk

Rich landowners, says von Buttlar, are leasing their land to windpark operators for 2000 to 10,000 euros an acre. Farmers can now kick back and do nothing but watch the money roll in.

The alternative energy situation in Germany has skidded so much out of control that even one of the fathers of the environmental movement has switched sides. Enoch zu Guttenberg, symphony conductor and co-founder of leading environmental activist group BUND, left the group in protest in May. Von Buttlar writes:

‘BUND appears to have sold out’, and he no longer wanted to crane his hands ‘near every money barrel,’ that corrupts. ‘Unfortunately we are no longer talking about the responsible future of energy management in Germany,’ zu Guttenberg writes. “We are talking about making a really fast buck’.”

Hopefully Germany’s disastrous energy model will act to deter others from following on the same path, which clearly Vermont has already embarked on in a radical way. Von Buttlar concludes his Financial Times article:

The next time you see a wind turbine, don’t think about whether it is attractive or ugly, or whether it is clean or polluting. Just think: Great! Now there’s sombody that has gotten seriously rich!“

And also ask: At who’s expense?

Top
#1121588 - 19/08/2012 20:13 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
For a change from Europe
From the USA via The Hockey Schtick.

Wind and solar get the most taxpayer help for the least production
FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2012

Quote:
The folks at the Institute for Energy Research used the Energy Department data to calculate a subsidy per unit of electricity produced.
Per megawatt hour, natural gas, oil and coal received 64 cents, hydropower 82 cents, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.29 and solar a whopping $775.64.

So for every tax dollar that goes to coal, oil and natural gas, wind gets $88 and solar $1,212.
After all the hype and dollars, in 2010 wind and solar combined for 2.3% of electric generation—2.3% for wind and 0% and a rounding error for solar. Renewables contributed 10.3% overall, though 6.2% is hydro.
Some "investment."

Zooming out for all energy, the Congressional Research Service did its own analysis of tax incentives last year.
It found that in 2009 fossil fuels accounted for 78% of U.S. energy production but received only 12.6% of tax incentives.
Renewables accounted for 11% of energy production but received 77% of the tax subsidies—and that understates the figure because it leaves out direct spending.

By the way, these subsidy comparisons don't consider that the coal, oil, and natural gas industries paid more than $10 billion of taxes in 2009. Wind and solar are net drains on the Treasury.

All of this suggests a radical idea. Why not eliminate all federal energy subsidies? This would get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers—mostly losers.
Mr. Obama's plan to eliminate oil and gas subsidies would lower the budget deficit by less than $3 billion a year, but creating a true level playing field in energy, and allowing markets to determine which energy sources are used, would save $37 billion.
That's an energy plan that makes sense.


PS; I'm not seeking these items out at all. They are just turning up in the various blogs that I surf and thats only during my surfing over the last couple of days.
Which quite likely is telling us that there is a major back lash building against the gross excesses and rorts and scams of the alternatives and the excessive public subsidisation of the alternative energy industries.


Edited by ROM (19/08/2012 20:19)

Top
#1121589 - 19/08/2012 20:14 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: ROM]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6033
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Never mind your solar, wind, etc...Here is the real solution...dog poo power!!!

"$45,000 grant to Poo Power!


Posted Tuesday 12th June 2012, 10:00am

TagsNewsroom
Project Updates


MEDIA RELEASE

Poo Power! is one of 63 successful recipients from Inspiring Australia’s ‘Unlocking Australia’s Potential’ program. The $45,000 grant has been awarded to the Yarra Energy Foundation to turn dog poo from parks in the City of Yarra into renewable energy.

There is over 1350 tonnes of dog waste to be disposed of every day in Australia - nearly half a million tonnes per year. Using this un-tapped resource, Poo Power! will engage Australians in its science through utilising an anaerobic digester to process dog waste into biogas that can serve as a local renewable energy source.

Within the City of Yarra there are approximately 6078 dogs that generate over 750 tonnes of waste every year - around 150 tonnes which ends up in urban parks. This waste can be diverted into a local an anaerobic digester to generate more than 3800 litres of biogas that can be used for heating, lighting or electricity.

This small but important amount of biogas will be used in a City of Yarra park in an interactive public installation as a community meeting place for use by dog owners and other citizens.

“This project has the potential to be groundbreaking, a whole lot of fun and will deliver value to the citizens in the City of Yarra, which is why YEF is involved.” Alex Fearnside, CEO of the Yarra Energy Foundation.

This project was instigated by Duncan Chew and driven by his passion for dogs, reducing waste and climate change. “One day a couple of years back I watching people at parks readily collect their dog’s poo in plastic bags only to send it to landfill and wanted to discover if a better use for the waste existed, I truly believe that this is a great solution.” Duncan Chew, Project and Science Engagement Manager for the Poo Power! Project.

The Innovation Australia grant funds will be used throughout the community engagement stages of the project. Community organisations, schools and groups within the City of Yarra will be able to take advantage of the offer of short workshops and free public events starting from Summer 2012/13. Updates will be announced through Yarra Energy Foundation’s Facebook page, Twitter (#poopower) and the Poo Power! quarterly newsletter."
http://www.poopower.com.au/our-story/45000-grant-to-poo-power.html

Top
#1121642 - 20/08/2012 09:50 Re: The Alternative Energy Scam? [Re: CeeBee]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5251
Loc: Not tellin!
Originally Posted By: CeeBee


ROM - got shares in oil and coal by any chance hmmm?? grin


The question could be bounced right back to you CeeBee, do you have shares in solar or wind energy?

When you see the immense amount of money pumped into renewable energy to make it get a little closer to cometitive to base load coal. It makes me think of how much of that money could have been used to research into safe nuclear or fusion or some other means.

I have no issues with saying that Australia needs to move away from fossil fuels, they are finite and therefor are a risk to our security and prosperity. However, this does not mean at all costs and right now. IMO there is a real throw the baby out with the bathwater feeling about most of climate policy around the world, you have Europe who is( unless something drastic changes soon) will run into serious power shortages within the next decade. Australia who is endeavoring to tax it's productivity into submission and of course none of this making any difference in emissions.

If Europe and in particular the UK continue or their current course and go through with their "targets", we WILL see a major shift of power and wealth from established western countries to developing and potentially unstable and undemocratic nations.

You think I am off track? Well consider a country that will HAVE to have electricity cut to parts of the grid to maintain power in times of low wind or sun. This is what will happen to the UK if it does not build some new base load generation. They are running out of gas under the north sea at a frightening rate and to boot Green peace and friends of the earth and all the other freaks keep bleating on about drilling exploration and this makes for serious power shortages and massive hikes in electricity costs and a huge drop in the stability of power supply. The sum of this will mean some huge exodus of business from the UK to other countries that make it easier and cheaper to do business. Asia, Africa, central America......anywhere but western Europe and climate change fanatics.

We could be on the edge of some very turbulent times, all because of some dodgy science and a hefty political activism and idiotic government decisions trying to govern by opinion polls. I reckon I will have to buy some solar panels and windmills to make sure I have electricity to continue the fightback!


Edited by adon (20/08/2012 09:58)

Top
Page 1 of 78 1 2 3 ... 77 78 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 273 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Forum Stats
29277 Members
32 Forums
23614 Topics
1452199 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image