Hi all!
Following this week’s Twitter exchange between Matt Ridley and Mark Lynas I thought a helpful fact sheet about Wind Energy would be useful. People can print it out, send to their relatives, MPs, Senators etc etc.
Thanks!
Josh
=============================================================
Let’s look at that big zero in the context of world energy. According to this Bloomberg article (cited by Wikipedia) Wind power capacity now totals 238 gigawatts worldwide at end of 2011
China leads the world in installs in 2011, That figures, as they have all the rare earth metals needed.
Total world energy generation in 2011…can’t seem to find that yet. EIA/IEA reports don’t seem to be out yet for 2011. Last figure I can find from Wikipedia is:
132,000 TWh for 2008 with growth of 5% in 2010. so figure 140 Terawatt hours.
140 terawatt hours = 140 000 gigawatt hours
wind power in 2011 = 238 gigawatt hours (installed potential capacity, actual output is far less)
% of 238/140,000 = 0.16999999999999998 ~ .17 %
(Update, I misread the Wikipedia data, conflating Gigawatt hours with gigawatts, totally different. Thanks to HaroldW and others for pointing out my unit error. – Anthony
Harold W adds in comments:
The installed capacity of wind power is 238 GW.
Average efficiency is perhaps 20% (arguably a little higher or lower).
At that rate, energy produced annually is 417 TWh.
Fraction is still 0%, to the nearest whole number.)
417 TWh at 20% efficiency, calculates to 0.32% (417/132,000) This matches the Wikipedia chart below
Nearest whole number then is, zero.
Matt Ridley’s excellent essay, The beginning of the end of wind, in the first line says:
To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero.
That links to this Wikipedia graph:
Again, the nearest whole number to 0.3% is zero. But that data is from 2006, rendered in 2008, the citation says:
An attempt at showing world energy usage types with a bar graph. (Meant to replace w:Image:Cascading Pie charts.png by User:Mierlo, which uses a pie chart with misleading numbers like 41% for solar heating, when it’s actually 41% of 9% of 14% = 0.5%.) Values are taken from the pie chart, which is originally from the data in REN21 2006 global status report on renewables and the BP 2006 Statistical review (most recent data available at http://www.bp.com/statisticalreview)
I suspect the growth in other energy sectors pushed wind back a bit since then. And remember, these numbers are for installed capacity, which assumes the wind blows and the turbine functions at 100%, which we’ve seen in practice never happens at 100%.
What’s more significant in the energy production graph is the 0.2 percent Biofuels while Obama is pushing algae based energy agenda. Pathetic.
[snip . . . ]
But we’re way off topic.
There was/is a figure somewhere concerning bird deaths (can’t think where to find it now) and road traffic in particular.
That figure was= 40 miles per hour and was was the typical speed at which most birds could ‘get out of your way’
Below 40mph, most birds could see the vehicle coming and have the time/speed/agility to avoid a collision. Faster than that and more of them would get mashed than could escape.
I think it came from research on how fast the local raptors could fly/manoeuvre/chase and successfully capture other birds (their prey) but the principle applied to cars (windmill blades??) also.
Not sure about the rest of you, but some of the best reading is from the (mostly) informed commentary on this website. Kudos to Anthony for artfully managing our excesses. That said…off I go.
Coal mining deaths in the developed world (read USA) are holding at an average of about 30/ year. According to the BLS, ~600 die from falling, 200 die in the leisure industry, 30,000 from the flu…you get the picture.
Regarding wind energy production let me offer some 100,000 ft. commentary:
ALL energy production facilities have a local impact. Energy density is what drives a modern economy and without it an “on demand” electricity system doesn’t operate. Wind or solar aren’t dense. Electricity is the only energy system whose supply and demand must balance instantaneously, thus Grid operators get uncomfortable when frequency moves much out of a ~.5% range. Wind and solar resources complicate reliability because their inherent variability don’t match with the physics of a steady state electric grid.
If energy policy is left to the greens the result will be a system of rationing.
They require permanent fossil fuel back up – not really. They require permanent backup, that’s it. But it does not really have to be fossil fuel based, actually nuclear plants are better suitable as backups.
Not even CLOSE to true. You cannot easily startup and shutdown a nuclear reactor, for one. Lowering power is easier, but raising power means increasing core reactivity, which is a BIG deal. Not something you do on a whim or at the discretion of the load dispatcher.
At least in the US, there are currently only ~100 nuke plants, so in any given area there are only a few, often times one. For instance, in the cited article about Texas, the wind capacity quoted was roughly 7000 MW. There are 4 nuclear plants in Texas with a combined capacity of about 6000 MW. At most you could have those plants standby at maybe 75% capacity to allow for wind power, at an increased risk resulting from cycling the fuel clad during power manipulations. BAD idea. And still, some 5500 of the 7000 MW required to be backed up by fossil units.
It is clear you have no clue about the inner workings of a nuclear power plant. Better to keep quiet than expose your ingorance.
BTW, as an aside, the NRC tracks a performance indicator for nuclear plants regarding “unplanned power changes per 7000 critical hours”. They track changes greater than 20%, IIRC. They track those because the industry recognizes that one of the biggest error precursors that could cause a plant trip, transient, or even an accident, is a power change. Most of the time the plants run quietly at full power and there isn’t much work going on that involves much risk even if a mistake is made.
The consequences of making a mistake when directly changing power in the core can be drastic. Suffice to say I don’t think federal regulations would EVER allow the plants in the US to change power to facilitate variation in wind power.
On topic, If you want up to date numbers for energy production, the site oilprice.com has a real-time web widget:
http://oilprice.com/free-widgets
For 2012 wind is 1.15 billion BTUs out of a total of 92.70 or about 1.2%.
Sorry to spoil a good headline.
dtbronzich, I watched the video you linked to. It stated that there are about 5000-8000 eagles in California alone. The video also said that 80 die from turbine hits each year. So a small percentage get killed by turbines. Does that automatically mean that turbines should be dismantaled purely on the bird hits. No. Should turbines be stopped. Yes. But because they are uneconomic and not useful in generating energy at all.
Smokey, the video you linked to IS the fake. Watch about 10sec in. I don’t doubt that turbines do kill birds, but considering the numbers of turbines and the number of killed birds it’s not surprising.
DirkH, a road is still a small amount cleared land. Ok, I said around the base but take into account that I am not writing a full essay, I’m writing a comment in a blog.
higley7, Tips of turbines don’t go at the speed of sound. Turbine blades are pretty fragile things and spinning them at that speed would make them break apart under centrifugal force pretty quickly. Turbines have their rotation speed limited for this reason.
To everyone else. I see you that you are picking on the turbines killing eagles aspect. Is it so important that turbines are pulled down because they kill birds or because they are a waste of space and energy. I go with the later.
SadButMadLad,
OK, I watched the video several times around the 10 second mark. Care to explain how you know it’s fake?
Phil Clarke says:
March 11, 2012 at 8:51 am
On topic, If you want up to date numbers for energy production, the site oilprice.com has a real-time web widget:
———————————————————————-
That’s an interesting widget. I have to wonder how the worldwide real time totals are compiled. I have noticed that here in Canada renewable energy producers report only projected output not actual. Also, how is it determined what oil is used for feedstock, storage and by-products and haw much is burned? There is even a carbon counter. I have never seen a carbon emission meter anywhere on a tailpipe or in heavy industry let alone a reporting system. How would such a meter work? I think it would have to measure stack volume and flow rate as well as CO2 concentration. Would it also detect CO? I find it hard to believe that such an instrument exists but if it does it would be expensive and hard to maintain.
If the data is from estimates and projections it can be whatever the site designer wants it to be.
SadButMadLad says:
March 11, 2012 at 10:23 am
dtbronzich, I watched the video you linked to. It stated that there are about 5000-8000 eagles in California alone. The video also said that 80 die from turbine hits each year. So a small percentage get killed by turbines. Does that automatically mean that turbines should be dismantaled purely on the bird hits?
—————————————————————————————
Imagine if eagles were polar bears. The windmills would be gone pronto.
Let’s come back to this stat from time to time. The oil industry has been running for over 100 years. I would like to see a projection over the next 100 years at the current growth rate of renewables. Oh and let’s compare newly discovered oil deposits with when they come on line. ThumbWind.com
One more point. There have been many posts about the variability of renewables such as wind energy. It should be pointed out that ALL energy producers have fluctuation in production. Companies like Beacon Power are looking at ways to even out even the smallest of surges and brownouts. ThumbWind.com
ThumbWind says:
Oh and let’s compare newly discovered oil deposits with when they come on line. ThumbWind.com
*****
And exclude huge reserves that have not “come on line” because of political reasons. That really doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?.
How about we exclude all renewable energy that is subsidized by taxpayer dollars?
SadButMadLad says:
March 11, 2012 at 10:23 am
“It stated that there are about 5000-8000 eagles in California alone. The video also said that 80 die from turbine hits each year. So a small percentage get killed by turbines.”
A 1% to 1.6% loss each year is not peanuts. If we lost that much of our population in a war, it would mean over 3 million body bags each year. And, the proponents of wind power want to scale it up by at least an order of magnitude. Do that, and we’re talking about extinction in a matter of decades.
So, to sum up, the argument in favor of wind power so far is:
It doesn’t kill *that* many birds.
It only drives a *portion* of nearby people from their homes with VLF sound.
Someone *may* be able to recycle the parts.
The toxic byproducts are mostly affecting Chinese people and not Westerners.
The net negative economic factors aren’t *that* large.
The required backup power for inevitable failures *can* be clean power.
I don’t think there’s a single *positive* on wind power yet. Everything is “the negatives aren’t *that* bad” (or “aren’t here now”).
How about, there’s nothing actually *good* about it (except a few people who say they “feel good” about it), so let’s just not do it.
Instead, politicians get to pay off donors, with other people’s money, and we’re left with the cleanup, AGAIN.
There was a TV comedy many years ago that included a segment on a “Government Eye-Poking Service,” including a bureaucrat arguing how relatively inexpensive it was to partially blind people at random. Wind power reminds me of that, a little. It was “Alexei Sayle’s Stuff.”
Thumbwind says:
One more point. There have been many posts about the variability of renewables such as wind energy. It should be pointed out that ALL energy producers have fluctuation in production. Companies like Beacon Power are looking at ways to even out even the smallest of surges and brownouts. ThumbWind.com
Fossil and nuke plants can be throttled to meet demand. With wind and solar you gets what mother nature gives you, when SHE says regardless of load demand from millions of people and machines calling for it instantaneously. Get it?
I say, the fact that wind turbines have never directly killed a penguin or a polar bear — flying, or otherwise — constitutes a net positive impact.
Plus, it’s my firm belief that raptors and other flying creatures know exactly what they’re doing. They’re simply voluntarily sacrificing themselves for the noble cause of indisputably super efficient, virtually zero negative impact green energy. If our avian and vespertilionine kin approve, who are we to judge?
And if you disagree, then you must be a denier.
Oatley says:
March 11, 2012 at 7:04 am
“….ALL energy production facilities have a local impact. Energy density is what drives a modern economy and without it an “on demand” electricity system doesn’t operate. Wind or solar aren’t dense. Electricity is the only energy system whose supply and demand must balance instantaneously, thus Grid operators get uncomfortable when frequency moves much out of a ~.5% range. Wind and solar resources complicate reliability because their inherent variability don’t match with the physics of a steady state electric grid.
If energy policy is left to the greens the result will be a system of rationing.”
____________________________________
That is the whole idea behind the scam.
“…It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns….” ~ Maurice Strong Rio Conference, 1992
Notice the attack is aimed at the middle class and not the elite billionaires like Strong, Gore and Soros. They are the “Heroes” saving the planet from middle class excesses….
dtbronzich says:
March 10, 2012 at 11:01 am
Could you please substantiate this? The California Condor is extremely rare, at one point down to just 22 individuals and the focus of the most expensive species recovery program in history. According to Wikipedia (see here):
So if you’ve personally seen a dead Condor, that accounts for 1% of the wild population for the whole state of California.
I was just reading about how the highly variable wind power is causing coal plants to cycle and it is causing a nightmare of extra pollution and damaging the plant requiring shutdowns and repairs. In Texas they already know they will have rolling blackout because they spent their money on wind.
Barry says:
March 12, 2012 at 8:02 pm
You should provide a link. Some time ago, a commenter on a thread who worked at an electrical utility enlightened us on how difficult it is to deal with an intermittent input to the grid. I wish I had saved his comment or knew where to find it. It was a real eye-opener. It all made sense when he explained it, but it was the kind of stuff that, unless you do it for a living, you never think about, and you never realize how complex it really is.
How; can you please elaborate?
Bear in mind the distances between the nearest ‘ground’ point and a high tension wire can be 8 to 10 feet in a *vertical* direction (an insulator from a line/wire/HV cable to its mount) with additional distances (clearance) in other directions.
Routinely one will see birds ‘lighting’ on all sorts of electric delivery wiring, from High tension transmission to local distribution without a collection of ‘carcasses’ on the ground (ever driven a power line right-of-way for any distance? What were your observations regarding bird kills? I recall spending time along several hike and bike/motorcycle/snowmobile trails along ROWs in my old homestate and don’t recall seeing a single dead bird.)
.
It’s real easy; demand and load _must match_ OR voltage excursions take place (voltage on the ‘grid’ will go above and below normal limits).
A varying output from a wind-powered generation MUST be followed or ‘countered’ by fast-reacting generating plants that can monitor the ‘grid’ and compensate for wind generated output, but, imagine this being done across hundreds of miles (approaching 500 in Texas) with coal and gas-powered spinning reserves scattered around geographically and these operating plants are tied together using real-time monitoring and control system … w hen wind speed goes up so does generated outputs, and the conventional steam or nat gas turbines are throttled back (otherwise generation will exceed load and grid voltage will rise), and vice versa … and there are more considerations when VAR (‘reactive’ power) must be considered to keep a grid’s voltage stable …
.
Think: “Erosion”. You are removing whatever top-cover existed with a bull-dozer and the next and subsequent rains will begin their deleterious ‘work’ (those roads and wind turbine sites aren’t paved nor equipped with curb and gutter nor paved.)
.