|
|||
|
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s abrupt exit from nuclear energy after the Fukushima disaster in Japan and aggressive push into renewables has unnerved German industry. A recent overhaul of the country’s complex renewable energy law has done little to alleviate uncertainty over future policy or assuage fears about German energy competitiveness. “Energy intensive industries in particular have lost confidence in the future of Germany as a business location,” said Thomas Mayer, a former chief economist at Deutsche Bank. —Reuters, 16 August 2014 The Green Party has criticised Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, for cancelling her attendance at the UN Climate Summit on 23 September in New York and accused her of giving preference to lobby interests. “Instead of fighting for global climate protection on the international stage, she rather goes to speak to the lobby group of German industry which is not known to be a haven of climate change activism,” said the party’s parliamentary deputy Oliver Krischer.–Die Welt, 15 August 2014 Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leader of the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas-emitting nation, won’t join his U.S. and Chinese counterparts at a United Nations climate summit next month in New York. Modi will skip the Sept. 23 event, according to the Economic Times, thwarting a potential meeting between the heads of states for the three largest greenhouse gas emitters — arguably the nations that will drive international negotiations next year in Paris. Modi’s absence is a bit of a blow to the summit, as India hasn’t made the type of ambitious gestures that China and the U.S. have floated. –Zack Colman, Washington Examiner, 15 August 2014 According to a group of Norwegian researchers, the prospects for achieving an effective international climate treaty are poor. The measures that are politically feasible are ineffective and the measures that would be effective are politically infeasible. The world is actually further away from achieving an effective international climate agreement today than it was 15 years ago, when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. Little basis for optimism exists. —The Research Council of Norway, 14 August 2014 The movement to push through a binding international climate change treaty has lost most of its momentum in recent years, having failed at conference after conference, summit after summit, to reach any sort of consensus about how the world ought to respond to the pervasive threats brought on by our warming world. The reason all this chatter is proving futile is that the developing and the developed world are engaged in a showdown. Attempting to reach a global agreement is the same as banging one’s head against the wall. The Global Climate Treaty movement wastes time and jet fuel, but sadly there’s no end to the charade in sight. –Walter Russell Mead,The American Interest, 13 August 2014 The chapter analysing the history of the industry in Spain is laugh-a-minute stuff, a tale of incompetent politicians and civil servants bumbling from one disaster to another and fraudulent investors cheating their way to a slice of public funds. We hear about the diesel generators generating “solar power” at night and that at one point the authorities estimated that half of new solar PV connections to the grid were fraudulent. You can see why the revolution led to disaster. I leave you with this apposite quote from the text: “Modern renewable energies, supposedly born to support a sustainable world, became one jewel of the most unsustainable of human activities, financial greed.” –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 17 August 2014 In the run up to the general election, the mood music among political leaders seems to have become somewhat more cautious on shale development. At this stage in the political cycle, local opposition is bound to be at the forefront of politicians’ minds. But the public understands that shale development is a matter of national interest – recent polling suggests that 57 per cent are in support, while just 16 per cent oppose it. Shale could be a boon to our energy-intensive industries, creating jobs in the north of England, and increasing domestic gas production to keep wholesale prices down. Policymakers should keep these huge potential benefits in mind in the run-up to the general election. –Benny Peiser & Daniel Mahoney, City A.M. 15 August 2014 |
Corruption among Windies!
Wind is a Really Bad Idea…..Former GE Executive, Tells All!
Former GE executive tells us why BigWind is a BAD idea
GE can’t be happy about this, but retirement can loosen the noose that limits free speech…
In a casual conversation, I was asked why wind energy is a bad idea. Once again, I realized that a one or two-word answer could not convey a readily understandable and accurate picture of wind energy.
This article will try to provide such an answer in a few hundred words, where one or two won’t suffice.
There are essentially four reasons why wind energy is a bad idea.
It is unreliable. It is very, very expensive. It produces electricity when it isn’t needed. It has environmental issues.
Wind can only produce electricity when the wind is blowing at between 6 mph and 55 mph. Above 6 mph, it gradually increases its output until it reaches a maximum output at around 35 mph. Above 55 mph, the wind turbine is shut down to prevent damage to the turbine.
The wind can stop blowing abruptly, so backup power generation must be immediately available to replace the wind generated electricity, or the grid could collapse causing blackouts.
Typically, gas turbine generators are kept running 24/7 so they are available to be rapidly brought online.
A sufficient number of gas turbine generators must kept running at all times to be ready for when the wind stops blowing. This varies by region and on the reliability of day-ahead weather forecasts.
The electricity generated by wind has an intrinsic cost, based on leveled cost of electricity (LCOE) of around 11 cents per kWh. This compares with around 5 cents per kWh for natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants and around 6 cents for coal-fired power plants.
But there are other costs for wind energy that are seldom taken into consideration, and not included in LCOE calculations….
Wind farms also produce electricity at night, when it isn’t needed.
This has resulted in the bizarre situation where the owners of wind farms have sold electricity at a loss, for example, actually paid the regional transmission organization (RTO) 1 cent per kWh, in order to collect the 2.2 cents per kWh subsidy.
More importantly, the nameplate ratings of wind turbines overstate the amount of electricity they can produce. Wind turbines in the United States have had a capacity factor of around 32%, or lower during the recent past.
Capacity factor is the amount of electricity a wind turbine, or any other power generation method, produces over a year, compared with how much it could produce using its nameplate rating.
Coal-powered and NGCC power plants typically have a capacity factor of around 85%, while nuclear power plants have a capacity factor of 90% or higher.
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) is constantly bragging about how many Megawatts (MW) are being installed, when wind turbine’s true ability to produce electricity is only one-third the amount claimed by the nameplate rating.
Essentially, wind turbines produce small amounts of electricity compared with the other methods….
Wind Pusher’s Conduct, Called Into Question!….Not acceptable!
MSP calls for wind farm developer code of conduct
The move comes after constituents raised concerns about the activities of one particular developer in trying to garner public support for its proposed wind farm.
Speaking from his constituency office, Mr Fergusson said: “As competition grows for wind farm sites, developers will be keener than ever to attract support from communities and individuals for their proposed developments.
“In doing so, it would seem that one company in particular has angered a large number of my constituents by negotiating secret agreements with individuals to ensure that they don’t object to the development in return for an undisclosed sum of money.
“This activity causes suspicion between neighbours, division within communities and is the polar opposite of the levels of openness and accountability that ought to characterize the local negotiations that precede any wind farm development.
“In my opinion, a code of practice for developers would ensure that all affected communities and individuals would be treated with respect as negotiations move forward and remove the atmosphere of distrust and suspicion that clearly exists in at least one particular local situation.
“I have written to the minister to suggest a code of practice, and will pursue the possibility through normal parliamentary processes.”
Earlier this year, 50 community councils from across the region called for a moratorium on consent for wind farms in the region, claiming a map produced by Scottish Natural Heritage shows southern Scotland has more onshore wind farm developments proposed than any other part of the country.
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 