By Steven Goddard
In Wednesday’s Guardian, their lead environmental story made this bold claim about The Whitelee Wind Farm:
Europe’s largest onshore wind farm, which is already powerful enough to meet Glasgow’s electricity needs
There was no discussion in the article about how Glasgow would handle extended periods of cold and calm winds, such as was often seen this past winter.
If the wind isn’t blowing, the turbines aren’t spinning and no electricity is being generated. This tends to happen on the coldest days, when the electricity is needed the most.
The flaw in The Guardian’s logic is a failure to acknowledge that Glasgow needs a consistent power supply 24x7x365. The fact that Whitelee has a lot of windy days and a high annual energy potential, does no good on the cold, calm days. I’m going to try to help The Guardian out with their logic using a few analogies they should understand.
- On average, there is lots of ice in the Arctic during the year – but that doesn’t stop The Guardian from being concerned about the possibility of a few ice-free days.
- Penguin chicks may get plenty to eat most of the year, but during the times when they don’t, many of them starve to death.
- Getting a pay check nine months a year would not pay the bills for the other three.
- Having toilets available only five days a week would not be satisfactory to most people.
- Having only five days a week without being in an automobile crash would not be satisfactory to most people.
- The rainy season in Australia may produce floods, but that doesn’t stop animals from dying of dehydration during the dry season.
- Having your watch functional 90% of the time would not be adequate.
- The fact that a restaurant is not responsible for food poisoning on most nights, may not make you want to eat there.
- Being careful on the edge of the Grand Canyon 90% of the time may not be enough.
- Practicing safe sex 90% of the time is not recommended.
It would be disastrous for Glasgow if they did not have the ability to obtain 100% of their energy from conventional sources on any given day of the year, when the wind isn’t blowing. If The Guardian is attempting to propose that Glasgow could cut off their supply of conventional electricity sources, they should just come out and say that. The implication is both clear and incorrect. “already powerful enough to meet Glasgow’s electricity needs”
Is The Guardian part of the Climate Industrial Complex?
Kum Dollison (14:42:39) :
You can’t just be “Agin” Everything. You’ve got to be For “Something.”
Otherwise, regular people just tune you out as a “Collection of Cranks.”
I think the hue and cry you hear is necessary to slam on the brakes before we head over the cliff. After that, we can calmly and collectively come to an agreement on the best course to follow.
Personally, I don’t have anything “agin” alternate energy sources like wind and solar when they are seen for what they are – supplements to more reliable and LESS EXPENSIVE energy sources. And as technology improves, those alternate sources will become less expensive and more reliable – truly viable alternatives.
If warmists would drop their crusade against carbon, then we might be able to move the lion’s share of electrical energy production towards natural gas (and increasing the numbers of diesels and NGVs vs the convention gasoline vehicles). And while we have relatively inexpensive energy, invest in nextgen nuclear reactor research, perhaps providing the technological critical mass to achieve practical, large-scale fusion, providing us with the ultimate SUSTAINABLE, low environmental impact energy source.
Is that “fer” enough for ya?
Marinaman (08:32:55) :
Now if the excess electricity could produce, say, hydrogen which would fuel a conventional power plan on windless days, that would be something. But I don’t believe we have mastered Hydrogen production and storage, have we?
Marinaman,
Do we master hydrogen production and storage: Yes we have, but not at a competative level.
Please understand that the objective of the current AGW Doctrine is aimed to tax carbon fuels. This is most effective if alternative energy sources are NOT reliable.
There are two hoaxes:
1. The hoax of Anrtopogenic Global Warming.
2. The hoax of reliable alternative energy.
In the mean time the current ‘Consensus’ which only exist because WE THE PEOPLE ARE TOO PASSIVE AND DON’T USE OUR BRAINS. We have arrived at a point in history where we are about to lose our civil rights and our freedom to a gang of MAFIOSI.
That is how it is.
Ralph Ellis: “technological Taliban”
This deserves wider exposure.
On wind power: It is extremely unlikely that wind turbines are going to get much better. There is a large technology overlap with sailplane wings (epoxy – carbon composite construction, custom high tech airfoils) and these things appeared 30 years ago. In the time since there has been little progress except that you can run the structural and airfoil design codes on your desktop instead of the university mainframe.
Look, all I’m saying is: the anti-AGW community needs to “Focus.” We’ve allowed the watermelons to conflate CO2 with “Pollution.”
NO ONE likes “dirty.” “Dirty” Air, “Dirty Water,” “Dirty Skivvies:” It’s all anathema. The average person lives in a “Clean” home, drives a “Clean” Car, “Cleans” their dishes after supper, and makes their kids “Clean” their fingernails.
They like the idea of “CLEAN ENERGY.” If you spend half your time ranting about the idiocy of “CLEAN” Energy, and championing “DIRTY” Coal, and Oil by the time you get around to Explaining how “CO2 isn’t Pollution” they WON’T BE LISTENING.
You’ve got to “Pick your Fights.”
The lyrics of the Beatles’ Song: “If you’re carrying a picture of Chairman Mao, You Won’t Make It, Anyhow.”
Kum Dollison (14:42:39) :
Unfortunately, this blog is turning into a rabid, anti-alternatives, every where,
all the time, day in, day out rant. I think that’s a mistake. I think poll after poll tell us that the “People” mostly think AGW is bunk, but “alternatives” to coal, and petroleum are something that are of interest to the everyday Joe.
Why and when we rant.
When green agenda articles promote energy production sources that are reliant on the prevailing weather conditions as an alternative to those that aren’t.
Deep desperation for an actual viable alternative energy source that is beyond the control of a cartel.
Frustration that our rich Western societies have been manipulated into believing that wealth generation and prosperity are great evils, right about when this evil wealth was on the cusp of spreading to the 80% of the Earths population who live in poverty.
Knowing that 25% of the population of the planet live without electricity and that bogus, weather reliant pseudo alternatives are never going to remedy that.
This site calls into question the statistical competence of Mann, of Steig and so forth. The same site publishes this …
The flaw in The Guardian’s logic is a failure to acknowledge that Glasgow needs a consistent power supply 24×7×365
Anybody else puzzled?
“David Ball (10:58:46) :
I see proponents of AGW using the abbreviation WWUT.”
They might be using it so that others won’t be able to google it. Maybe “WWUT”
needs to be added to the search terms here so WUWT comes up first on google searches…
Mike
Paul R (17:46:09) :
Kum Dollison (14:42:39) :
Unfortunately, this blog is turning into a rabid, anti-alternatives, every where,
all the time, day in, day out rant. I think that’s a mistake. I think poll after poll tell us that the “People” mostly think AGW is bunk, but “alternatives” to coal, and petroleum are something that are of interest to the everyday Joe.
Why and when we rant.
When green agenda articles promote energy production sources that are reliant on the prevailing weather conditions as an alternative to those that aren’t.
Deep desperation for an actual viable alternative energy source that is beyond the control of a cartel.
Frustration that our rich Western societies have been manipulated into believing that wealth generation and prosperity are great evils, right about when this evil wealth was on the cusp of spreading to the 80% of the Earths population who live in poverty.
Knowing that 25% of the population of the planet live without electricity and that bogus, weather reliant pseudo alternatives are never going to remedy that.
Paul R,
You are right.
Development starts with availability of affordable energy.
Local food production is possible with modern agricultural techniques.
Both are denied by policies of the United Nations, the same organiyations that demands the West to shut down our economies.
We have nothing against alternative energy but it must be reliable, competative, and safe.
Today’s alternatives are not viable.
There are much better ways to spend our money.
Paul,
I appreciate your frustration, but sometimes you just have to let the kids play. Someone mentioned upthread that their electricity bill went up after, I presume, his utility started buying some windpower. Well, the thing is, anytime a new electric plant of any kind gets built electricity rates go up. The utilities have, it seems, almost everywhere managed to get dispensation to raise their rates on the “front end.”
Someone else mentioned that federal subsidies for wind was $23.37, I think it was, per Megawatt hr.. Well, heck, that’s about two, and a third cents per kilowatt hr. It’s not a big price, and maybe we’ll learn something.
People might be pre-occupied with other things (making a living?) but, they’re not stupid. They know the wind doesn’t blow all the time, and that the sun “goes down” every night; but, they, also, like to see people trying new things. They’re Americans. (at least, the ones that live in “America” are:)
They know that coal is dirty, and that oil, being a finite substance, can’t last forever. In fact, they saw gasoline go to $4.25/gal last year, and they’re watching it start to climb again.
And, they respond to “Positive” Messages. They will respond to “The Earth’s Climate is just fine.” They’ll respond well to, “It was hot two years, ago, and it was cool last year, and we think it’s going to be “mediumish” this year, but “Hey, it’s the Weather.”
People will respond to, “CO2 is GOOD for the Earth.” “It’s Plant Food.” “The Earth is 6% Greener than it was a couple of decades, ago.” “We’ve been in a warm period, but now we’re probably heading into a cooler period.”
But, when they see Wind working in Texas, and Iowa you’re going to lose their interest when you start telling them that Wind is Stupid, Period.
When they see Millions of Solar Panels getting installed, they might be a little skeptical about it paying for itself on their own roof; but they might like the idea that someone else is doing a little work on it. Again, they’re Not Against Progress, and Coal is Finite, and “Dirty.”
In short, you need to “Sell” your own product, and let the doomsayers pitch theirs. And, keep an open mind, and “Stay Focused.” You’ll Win.
The hypocrisy of the greens is astounding.If birds were being killed by oil rigs there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.Windmills do nothing for the environment,I am glad that they haven’t taken off in Tasmania,imagine fouling our scenery with those horrible eyesores.If they delivered what is promised,then it would be a case of the good outweighs the bad.The greens are to stupid to see they are being used by big business and politicians.They help them make money,and they help politicians get elected.If they were amoral,they would be making money,they’re not,but they have been compromised.Somebody should print a poster of that beautiful dead bird(it’s in the link),and caption it”sold out by the greens”
http://www.ecogeneis.com/reports/commentsondgeis/we_june012005.pdf
If half of what is stated is true,the price is too high.
It would be enlightening to study/discuss the real purposes BEHIND alternative energies promotion, BEHIND global warming, etc. i.e. BEHIND all UN regressive agenda, WHO are the ones and WHICH organizations and people are BEHIND that agenda. Discussing or studying isolated items, as climate or energy it is simply useless, it does not affect THEM and their up to now world success. The world is in need of a kind of “Glasnost”, of transparency, of exposing those blood sucking gnats BEHIND these agendas and scientifically demonstrate their mental disability which causes them to compensate this pathology by such a mounstrous and at the same time stupid conspiracy.
I seem to remember reading books about and seeing old fotos of ships that carried cargo. These ships had large masts and sails – and no engines.
Golly, I wonder what happened to them?
I wonder if a sane government would actually commission a sailing ship fleet in this day and age. It’s got to be the future – surely.
Tidal power. Might work fine until one of those once in a century storms comes along and destroys the infrastructure. Isn’t it also funny that these once in a century storms seem to come along every ten years or so?
I am really thinking lately about Energy = xVelocity cubed. The trouble with wind is that the energy produced is a factor of wind velocity cubed. So the energy output curve is very steep. You can’t tell how much power a turbine is producing by looking at it, because they generate power by torque, not speed of the wheel. So there is enormous fluctuations of power output as the wind goes from 15mph to 20mph to full output at 28 mph. Now a very, very interesting paper from Germany, referenced in this post.
http://nofreewind.blogspot.com/2009/05/how-often-does-turbine-produce-power.html
to the right of the red/green chart under Now for the Bad News.
measured grid feed-in from wind in 15 minute intervals, but measured the high and low. And found that the fossil wasn’t able to follow those very, very wide intra 15 minute fluctuations. So there was nothing like a 1:1 replacement of wind for fossil. On page 6 of the study the author states “For 8.3 TWh of electricity feed in by the EEG mechanism, compensation and regulation power of 3.2 TWh were necessary within the Vattenfall grid area.”. What this means is that the wind only replaced fossil by 62% or 38% of the wind was lost!
A grid manager today told me grids rebalance every 15 minutes, the don’t really follow the wind around all day, up and down up and down. For the most part it is just part of the load since it usually represents a small part of total energy in the grid. So this results in a different calculation to achieve real capacity factor. In a good location a turbine might have 30% capacity factor, or 30% of it’s possible output. But this study shows that only 62% fossil is actually replaced because the fossil still have to compensate for part of these random fluctuations. So the REAL capacity factor for good location is 30% times 62% = 18%. !!! Or in many poorly suited locations capacity factor is 20% so it is really 20% times 62% or 12%. This makes a huge difference when figuring Capital construction costs etc for who pays for construction, usually the taxpayer, or shall i say ALWAYS a taxpayer! Anywhere! And the turbine company could care less how much fossil is used to try to follow his output, because the Grid is FORCED to buy the power, and it is their problem. Us CHUMPS, the consumer, we pay for it. I guess a real greenie couldn’t care less, 10%, 20% or 30%, because “every little bit helps”, especially when it is someone else’s dime who is paying for their red dreams.
Philip Johns,
Apparently you have never heard the saying “24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.” You also didn’t bother to read the posts. So here it is again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24/7
The components of those West Texas turbines were shipped through our town regularly a few years back. Big ol’ things, the generator housing was the size of a large mobile home. I wonder if the steel mill and metal-processing facilities that made those were powered by wind? Even in windy West Texas, where I spent my college years, 40% availability isn’t enough to run a steel mill.
Part of the reason that coal and oil lasting for decades or centuries is “like Eons” is that a century ago most people travelled at the speed of a horse, or a walking man, unless they took a train for a longer distance. A century before that the fastest thing was a ship — then as now, assuming the wind was blowing. A few decades makes a big difference in the 20th and 21st Centuries. If Polywell/Bussard fusion pans out, CO2 ceases to be a problem, except for environmentalists, whose drive to control will now have them arguing that the EPA should regulate deuterium. It’s always something.
Big, ugly wind towers are actually an improvement on most of the West Texas landscape, I welcome them. CO2 sequestration can be helpful if it’s sequestered into oil wells to improve production yield, trash to treasure. I don’t have a problem with wind power advocates, I do have a problem with bad math and excessive moralization regarding sustainability, especially when that mantra is used to forcibly cut us off from energy sources that are available to us. Subsidized wind power is not cheap wind power, despite centuries of research and technological progress there is still no free lunch. If there were, we’d be using perpetual motion machines rather that futzing around with windmills. Somebody always pays, and hardcore AGW advocates are all about externalities until you point out the exceptionally toxic byproducts of silicon solar panel lithography, or the fact that it’s taxpayers taking a bath so some people can feel justified in buying wind power.
Kum,
Your confidence is misplaced. The UK government has no plans in place to create the conventional backup which will be required five to ten years from now as a number of old nuclear plants go offline.
Power curves for modern wind turbine
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/762/powercurvefh1.jpg
note the speed is metres/sec!
Not all uranium is available with a net energy production:
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/4262/energycliffij9.jpg
i.e. seawater uranium is NOT viably extracted
cost comparison
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9996/uswindpowerfullcosts.jpg
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9468/electcostsfullcompared.jpg
Bird fatalities and wind turbines
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7838/birdfatalitieswindturbi.jpg
Nuclear power researched
http://www.stormsmith.nl/publications/Energy%20from%20Uranium%20-%20July%202006.pdf
Look at Irish Wind Now:
http://tinyurl.com/qtvowa
page back from today to May 5th and notice they were at 940 MW of output, but they haven’t come close to that and have been below 500 MW most days.
As far as the gal saying “chill out”. Do you know who is paying for this? WE ARE. Do you hear Obama saying we are going to create Green Jobs. Do you think we are going to loose any jobs? Do you think they are going to close a coal or gas or nuclear plant knowing full well that ANYDAY next week, ANYWHERE, there could be no wind, esp with summer highs moving in! Turbines ONLY go up, in any country, because there are enormous subsidies to build them, then the Electric grids are FORCED to buy the energy, usually at a premium, and then to add to the misery in the US and most other places there are behind the back production tax credits, that the federal gov’t gives. Here in the US that PTC is 2.1 cents or 20% of my electric rate! Chill? I pay $12,000/year in electricity with my home and two business’s. I am going to be paying $20,000/year soon enough in a bad business environment. That is the Obama plan? Why doesn’t he create jobs by just hiring more guys at the water company to play cards instead of junking up my landscape with thee beasts.
The poster above who talked about blackouts. He Knows!! The grid is going to fight like hell to keep the fossil ready to balance the crazy constant wind fluctuations, see Ireland as great example, and the fact that in 24 hours they may well be no wind whatsoever. Look here for North Dakota, claimed to be wind capital of the USA. Every other day, no wind, no wind, no wind.
http://basinelectric.com/Energy_Resources/Wind/Basin_Electric_Generation/index.html
Here is a video about the intermittency of wind.
see top post of blog, and more charts here.
http://www.nofreewind.com/Charts.html THIS IS INSANITY AS AN ELECTRIC SUPPLY.
Wind power is already storing useable power for the future –
each kWh generated displaces an amount of energy being generated by oil/gas (at 30-60% efficiency) thus saving this for use in the future.
another way of storage
http://www.hydrogen-yorkshire.co.uk/documents/Hydrogen_Generation_HMGS_fact_sheet.pdf
You can easily farm around them
Yeah, sorta. YOU try to farm with 25-50 foot equipment with a big ole windmill every 500 feet, big ole concrete pier, etc, etc. Not to mention the access roads, maintenance crews, etc, etc. It’s doable, but it ain’t easy, and there are going to be times when multiple parties feel like choking someone.
Smokey (13:20:51) :
ralph ellis (14:55:46) :
Hats off to both of you. Well and clearly written.
But infinitely more difficult is: how do we get entrenched, greedy, self-serving] politicians to learn from what you have so well written and do what’s best for their countries? I surely don’t know.
The world is swimming in energy, there is no energy shortage.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage
I bet the Guardian believes in the Easter Bunny and Father Christmas as well!
Ok, hopefully the last one:
A doctor with a 99% success ratio only drops one baby in 100 on its head during delivery.
I wish we could get the gobment out of this and allow private enterprise to solve our problems.
Wow !!! Another great thread with great posts by great posters. When one reads a novel it is written by one or two authors. This blog has the interesting aspect of having a multitude of posts by highly intelligent posters. Vast demographic as people of every age and education level provide many points of view on any given thread. Usually in a unique way. Makes for some good reading !! Cheers to all !! ……..