Energy from new Australian wind farms cheaper than from new coal or gas plants, report shows

Feb 08, 2013 by Lin Edwards report
A wind farm in South Australia

(Phys.org)—A new study has found that in Australia electricity from new wind farms will be cheaper than that from new coal or gas power plants, which overturns the common presumption that renewables are more expensive than coal or gas.

The analysis of Australia's energy options was carried out by a Sydney team belonging to the research company Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). The team modeled the prices of electricity from a variety of sources, and found electricity from a new wind farm could be supplied at $80 (AUD) per MWh, while electricity supplied by a new power plant would cost $116, and a new $143.

These prices included the Labor government's , but wind was cheaper even without carbon pricing being factored in. The analysis also predicted that large solar photovoltaic installations will be cheaper than coal or gas by 2020, and solar thermal and biomass systems will be at least competitive by 2030.

The costs of renewables such as wind and solar are dropping but the costs of new coal and gas plants are rising, especially as the study found the four major banks in Australia were less likely to finance new unless an expensive risk premium was included. The prices of coal and gas are also rising because of the carbon tax and export markets, especially for liquid natural gas, pushing local prices up.

The CEO of BNEF, Michael Liebreich, said their findings that electricity from new is cheaper than new even in a country like Australia with its vast reserves of coal and gas, and this result "promises to turn the economics of power systems on its head." It also makes it likely that Australia will move increasingly towards investing in renewables and away from fossil fuels in the coming decades, unless the prices of fossil fuels drop and remain low.

Kobad Bhavnagri of BNEF added that new coal-fired are too expensive in Australia now and therefore no new ones are likely to be built, especially as the carbon price is expected to rise substantially, possibly tripling by 2030 from its current level of 23 AUD per tonne. By the time Australia needs to consider building new power plants (2020-30), renewables will be even more attractive, and new technologies may have been developed to deal with the intermittency problems of these renewable source of power.

At present, electricity from the existing coal and is cheaper than from new renewable sources because the fossil fuel plants were built in the 1970s and 80s and their construction costs have been paid off. Policies such as the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target will be needed to ensure Australia develops the infrastructure and skills needed to meet the target of 20 percent by 2020, and to transition to renewable energy as the primary source of power. The current figure is 9.6 percent.

Explore further: Artificial 'beaks' that collect water from fog: A drought solution?

Related Stories

Renewables could bring job boon to Poland: Greenpeace

Mar 11, 2011

An ambitious switch from fossil fuels to green energy could generate up to 350,000 new jobs by 2020 in the Poland, the European Union's most coal-dependent member, Greenpeace said Friday in Warsaw.

How affordable is alternative energy?

Aug 01, 2012

Alternative energy sources that are cost-competitive with fossil fuels may be closer than most people realize. Recent renewable energy research has shown that solar, hydropower, wind and other alternative sources are closing ...

European power plants boosting coal use

Apr 24, 2008

High oil and natural gas prices, coupled with increased demand, are driving Europe's return to coal-fired power plants, an industry official says.

Hydro beats nuclear and coal, beats oil and gas

Feb 05, 2013

Researchers in Italy and the UK have reviewed the economic, social and environmental impact of hydro, coal, oil, gas and nuclear power. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but of these conventional electricity generation ...

Recommended for you

Congress: Safety agency mishandled GM recall

Sep 17, 2014

Both houses of Congress scolded the U.S. highway safety agency Tuesday over its tardy handling of a deadly problem with General Motors cars, questioning whether it is competent to guarantee the safety of ...

Jindal: Obama hasn't done enough to harness energy

Sep 16, 2014

The governor of the state of Louisiana, a possible Republican presidential candidate, said Tuesday that President Barack Obama's administration has become "science deniers," failing to do enough to harness the nation's energy ...

User comments : 106

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Forestgnome
2.8 / 5 (20) Feb 08, 2013
"overturns the common presumption that renewables are more expensive than coal or gas"
Uuuhh, no it doesn't. It's obvious that there are specific places in the world that have enough wind energy density to make wind power economical. That doesn't translate to being economical everywhere. About 80% of Australia's coastline and a good patch of a southern inland region would be classified as "supurb" for wind energy due to the high wind energy density. The only major region in the U.S. classified as such is in the Aleution Islands.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (18) Feb 08, 2013
A "study has found"?

Nuh uh...show me the money...
JRi
3.1 / 5 (19) Feb 08, 2013
Coal and gas plants can be run whenever needed. Was the electricity storage system for non-windy days included in the calculations for wind mills?
gblaze41
2.4 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2013
"while electricity supplied by a new gas power plant would cost $116, and a new coal plant $143. "

The question is, are these higher costs due to regulations and taxes and fee's as compared to relatively unregulated wind power?
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (24) Feb 08, 2013
Coal and gas plants last for 50 years. Wind turbines last 12-15 years. And slaughter millions of birds.

"the fossil fuel plants were built in the 1970s and 80s and their construction costs have been paid off."

NotParker
2.1 / 5 (30) Feb 08, 2013
"no new ones are likely to be built, especially as the carbon price is expected to rise substantially, possibly tripling by 2030 from its current level of 23 AUD per tonne"

So in fact the real reason coal on paper is more expensive is because Australians pay a ridiculous carbon tax (until September) that no other country is stupid enough to pay.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (26) Feb 08, 2013
If you'd read the article you might have noticed this part:

but wind was cheaper even without carbon pricing being factored in
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (24) Feb 08, 2013
Coal and gas plants last for 50 years. Wind turbines last 12-15 years.
Life cycle repair and replacement are obviously included.
And slaughter millions of birds.
Sorry fossil fuel plants kill far more birds than turbines do.

"This article explores the threats that wind farms pose to birds and bats before briefly surveying the recent literature on avian mortality and summarizing some of the problems with it. Based on operating performance in the United States and Europe, this study offers an approximate calculation for the number of birds killed per kWh generated for wind electricity, fossil-fuel, and nuclear power systems.

"The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2013
So in fact the real reason coal on paper is more expensive is because Australians pay a ridiculous carbon tax (until September) that no other country is stupid enough to pay.
This is cheaper than the overall costs to the chinese and their neighbors including japan for instance, for pollution and environmental damage and the resulting sickness.
http://www.medind...21-1.htm
djr
3.7 / 5 (21) Feb 08, 2013
"If you'd read the article you might have noticed this part:"

Reading is not one of Parker's skillsets - making stuff up serves much better. We have quite a number of wind farms here in Oklahoma - and about 7 gigawatts on the drawing board. The land continues to be used for farming, and most people seem to be quite comfortable living with them. I love it when I get to drive out to Weatherford and watch the blades turning. Parker would prefer to breath the air in Beijing. There is no comparison in terms of the environmental impact of coal vs wind. Here is a cool article on the issue http://arstechnic...l-power/

So Parker - when was the last coal plant built in the U.S? How many plants have been shut down in recent years? How much wind power has been installed? The drip drip of history leaves the ludites in the mud....
2ndGreenRevolution Blog
3.6 / 5 (13) Feb 08, 2013
If you click the Bloomberg link in the article, there is more information on the study. It says without the carbon tax, wind beat out coal by 14%. This is surprising to me too, but it's possible that regulations on coal powerplants make this possible. Reduced pollution from coal, including soot and mercury, will also help wind pay for itself.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2013
Reading is not one of Parker's skillsets - making stuff up serves much better.

Definitely. All the numbers I found for lifetimes of wind turbines currently being installed was 20 years minimum with most being projected for 25 years and up. So I think he's lying on that count, too.

Even when I tried to find numbers for the very oldest wind turbines installed I got numbers that are above the 12-15 years range.
The Alchemist
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2013
What was I saying?
@JRi-and everybody really:
Wind is almost always blowing above 40 feet, is "always" blowing above 100 ft.
Google wind speed vs height.
Next step is really putting small (3-5) x 0.5 kw generators on the roofs of our houses, if the didn't make inverters so hard to find, this would be trivial, and pay itself off in months.
That and our government must be able to tax it.
djr
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2013
"So I think he's lying on that count, too." This is what happens when you spend too much time watching fake news channels - you start to believe that Germany has more sun that the U.S. - it is sad to see such a waste of a mind.

http://cleantechn...s-video/
djr
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2013
The comments section has been disabled on the youtube channel - I guess the rest of the world was having too much fun making fun of the U.S. 'news' channel.

http://www.youtub...embedded
holoman
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2013
Now use wind to power API's ECP-AMF process to make Biofuel (petroleum) and hydrogen for power plants (drinking water byproduct) and you have Renewable clean energy of the future.
holoman
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2013
forgot to mention feedstock for API's ECP-AMF process is sea water or biomass (trees, grass, weeds, etc.).
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2013
@holoman. Too right!
How about this?
Cellulose (vegetable fiber) and enzyme decomposition becomes startch.Starch plus 1,4 Gludosidasse becomes glucose.Glucose plus yeast becomes etanol.Ethanol becomes Carbon Neutral fuel and automobiles return to running on 100 octane (Ethanol) and not petrochemicals 80 octane).

We really are ready to move away from fossil fuels.
kochevnik
3.5 / 5 (14) Feb 08, 2013
@Forestgnome The only major region in the U.S. classified as such is in the Aleution Islands.
Classified by whom? There are windmills all over California. Detractors as yourself always lack citations
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2013
Just out of curiosity roughly how many windmills do you need in operation (this would include when the wind isn't blowing) to provide 200,000 TWh?
qitana
3 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2013
I suppose that if there would be windmills spread over a large portion of the world, one would have a more constant supply of energy, since, if it is not windy here, it might be windy over there, and energy might be transferred from place to place, depending on where there is an abundance and where there is a shortage, so that, if there would be enough wind mills spread over a large enough area, wind energy could be a source of constant sufficiency in energy. but, even if so, the building of windmills will be dependent on which energy sources will be the cheapest in the future.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2013
how many windmills do you need in operation...to provide 200,000 TWh?


If you're meaning to set up a strawman argument: forget it.

Germany (heavily industrialized as you may know) is getting roughly 10% of its electricity needs from wind energy with about 22300 windmills installed.

4 out of the 16 federal states are producing between 45 and 50% of their electricity needs from wind alone (the others are lagging behind, but new legislative initiatives are making it easier for setting up wind parks there, too. So we're expecting a significant jump in their numbers in the next 5 years). One district (Schleswig-Holstein) is planning to have 300% electricity production from alternative power sources by 2020 with wind covering the majority of that.

And we haven't even really started doing off-shore wind energy. The potential for off-shore is many times that (and we don't even have much of an shoreline to speak of )

If we can do it here - any country can.
OZGuy
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2013
$20 trillion shale oil find surrounding Coober Pedy 'can fuel Australia'

If (and it's a big if at this stage) this reserve does come in at 233 Billion barrels of recoverable oil then things are going to get interesting in Australia's energy future.

http://www.adelai...60401043
Egleton
2.5 / 5 (15) Feb 08, 2013
Heavens to Betsy!
That brought out the Shills for the Losers. (Big Coal and Big Gas)
Look at them beating their chests and roaring and bellowing.

The study used real numbers.
The Shills used grunts and bellows.
_traw_at
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 08, 2013
It occurred to me that some, um, entities are paying people to keep denying the feasibility of renewable energy production until those, um, entities have all the best locations for wind and solar installations locked up in leases and such. Some well-known oil billionaires are already quietly investing in wind power in central and west Texas. Billions of dollars. And a recent survey has pointed out the Montana alone has enough reliable winds to produce more than enough electricity to power 19 of the western US states- including California.
A new solar start-up in Texas is pre-selling their future production from thin-film solar panels for $0.058 kwh. That's less than what we pay for our hydro power in B.C.
And so it all advances, step by step.
MandoZink
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2013
And slaughter millions of birds.

That is an erroneously high number, but here's a better perspective on the reality...

Wind Turbines:
http://science.ho...irds.htm
Cats:
http://phys.org/n...als.html

Cats kill between 35,000 and 370,000 times as many birds as wind turbines do (lower/upper estimates).
Anonym
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2013
Hope this is true, but consider the source.
radek
2.9 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2013
how many windmills do you need in operation...to provide 200,000 TWh?


If you're meaning to set up a strawman argument: forget it.

Germany (heavily industrialized as you may know) is getting roughly 10% of its electricity needs from wind energy with about 22300 windmills installed.

And we haven't even really started doing off-shore wind energy. The potential for off-shore is many times that (and we don't even have much of an shoreline to speak of )

If we can do it here - any country can.


Germany achieved high level of nenewals energy by hard subisiding and special policy that forces energy operators to buy this energy. Special tax policy is also applied (additionally traditional energy makers has to pay emmision taxes). So German people has to pay for it. But it won`t last forever: http://www.bloomb...020.html

In Europe there are a lot of costal and sea wind farms.
ValeriaT
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2013
Without sufficient and expensive batteries it's difficult to compare the cost of such unreliable source of energy
NotParker
2 / 5 (17) Feb 09, 2013
On Wednesday the UK was getting 5GW of electricity from wind.

http://www.gridwa...r.co.uk/

Demand was 48GW.

Today the UK is getting .32GW of electricity from wind.

How many wind turbines does the UK need for 48GW?

150X more than they have now.

Which would be someone like 2 - 5 trillion pounds.

djr
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2013

Which would be someone like 2 - 5 trillion pounds

The installed capacity of wind in the U.K. is about 8.5 GW - http://en.wikiped..._Kingdom

At a capacity factor of 30% - you would need to install about 150 GW of wind turbines to completely cover the demand of 48GW. This is of course only about 18X what they currently have - not 150X. However - no one is proposing to totally cover demand with just one power source. It is understood - and has been told to Parker thousands of times that the future of power generation is in a mixed basket. Electrical costs around the world are going DOWN as a result of the brilliant work of engineers who have the foresight to understand the future - http://theconvers...lls-9945
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (16) Feb 09, 2013

Which would be someone like 2 - 5 trillion pounds

The installed capacity of wind in the U.K. is about 8.5 GW - http://en.wikiped..._Kingdom


dir, wind proponents always talk about maximum or average demand.

They always ignore minimum demand on the days when wind goes to zero.

You need 150x current wind turbines at todays wind amount which is almost zero, or you need 48GW of non-wind power sources running in the background burning fossil fuels or nuclear fuel to deal with zero wind energy.

Pathological dishonest people ignore minimum wind output and con people into thinking about averages.

And electricity is costing more in the real world.

Germany is a classic example.

http://www.spiege...415.html
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2013
They always ignore minimum demand on the days when wind goes to zero.


And you have to stop ignoring that EVERY proponent of alternative enrergy says there has to be a large grid and storage (and backup in the form of biogas plants or similar). And since many types of alternative power sources (hydro storage, biogas, solar-thermal with storage) are 'on demand' powerplants you don't have to have anything 'running in the background'.

No one would go for 100% wind. No one is lobbying for that. So stop pretending as if anyone is.

So what if power costs have gone up? Smoetimes investing in one's future costs money. Sticking with the old power sources (and having their fuel costs increase over time - and us at the mercy of countries that mine them) would not be any different in that regard.
Caliban
2.9 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2013
It occurred to me that some, um, entities are paying people to keep denying the feasibility of renewable energy production until those, um, entities [...]
A new solar start-up in Texas is pre-selling their future production from thin-film solar panels for $0.058 kwh. That's less than what we pay for our hydro power in B.C.
And so it all advances, step by step.


This is/was entirely predictable. Fossil has been raking in profits and studiously avoiding investment in renewables until the renewable tech was mature enough to meet or beat parity.

This is why I have been calling for investment and ownership in power generation to be Nationalized --to prevent the Vampire Capitalists' continued profiting at the public's expense, so that everyone can have power AT COST(plus a small surcharge to fund continuing R&D and structural upgrades).

You can expect control of renewable to change hands to the same old bad actors. "Meet the New Boss --same as the Old Boss".


keithmc
3 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2013
I just want to take a moment to thank the 'people' who are paid to comment on these stories. It reaffirms my paying a little extra for 100% wind power for my electricity. I will gladly pay more now to bring about the future I would like to see....I consider it an *investment* well spent, quite unlike the investment in paid "comments."
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2013
They always ignore minimum demand on the days when wind goes to zero.


And you have to stop ignoring that EVERY proponent of alternative enrergy says there has to be a large grid and storage (and backup in the form of biogas plants or similar).


Translation: Wind is a waste of money unless magical batteries large enough to hold weeks of power are suddenly invented and some magical supply of biogas that burns without producing CO2 is found.

antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2013
Wind is a waste of money unless magical batteries large enough to hold weeks of power are suddenly invented and some magical supply of biogas that burns without producing CO2 is found.

You need to get your translators checked.

The projected storage needs for a grid based on all alternatives -excluding biogas- is 3 days' worth of energy. If we can keep enough powerplants as backup around to tide us over for such a timespan then we don't need any storage at all. Nuclear is obviously a bad choice for this (the run-up times for nuclear powerplants are far too long). Gas powerplants would be much better. Some form of storage would be optimal.

And yes. We CAN produce 3 days worth of power from biogas per year (even without using crop plants but simply producing it from wastewater plants and burning trash).
djr
4 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2013
"Translation: Wind is a waste of money unless magical batteries large enough to hold weeks of power are suddenly invented"

Translation - Parker is incapable of understanding engineering facts. Wind is not a waste of money - that is a fact. As Antialis and I are trying to beat into your head - wind is a very viable power source - as one player in basket of options. No one is advocating using wind exclusively - this is the flaw you keep repeating over and over - either you are mentally ill, or deliberately intransigent. At this point - wind can be integrated into the grid - up to about 30%. That is a carbon free, cheap form of energy. Parker - go breathe the air in Beijing if you are so fond of the old way of doing things - we are happy that non polluting sources of power are now at or below fossil fuel costs - and brilliant engineers who have far more vision than you are working on integrating them into the grid.

djr
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2013
keithmc - "I will gladly pay more now to bring about the future"

As would many other folks more informed than the Parkers of this world. I am signed up for 100% wind power here in Oklahoma. It adds a few dollars a month to the bill. Every time OGandE (our utility) adds some more wind power - they are overwhelmed with applications to sign up for the wind power - and they have to close the applications after a couple of days. Most people would be happy to pay a couple of dollars - Parker can go live in Beijing.
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2013
NoParker writes from some parallel universe where the cost of fossil fuel is dropping. ANY new power plant will increase your utility bill. Nuclear is NOT an effective power backup. Weeks are required to bring a nuke plant up to capacity. Any elevated reservoir can store surplus wind energy with hydropumping, as well as make a wetlands in parched regions. Wetlands alone will breed far more birds than what little fly into turbine blades. Epigenetic changes in birds will quickly slash casualties in a few generations. Man is the dominant species on Earth and even he must adapt. Birds are equally adaptable, as city birds prove
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2013
Currently it reads 2.2 GW
Coal 14.GW

So, Coal consumption is reduced by 16 percent.

Excellent.

"Today the UK is getting .32GW of electricity from wind." - ParkerTard
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2013
Because as we all have experienced, sometimes the weather is such that there is no wind for weeks at a time.

In fact I remember reading about one entire year where there was no wind at all.

But that was on the imaginary planet called ConservaDopia.

"Wind is a waste of money unless magical batteries large enough to hold weeks of power" - ParkerTard
VendicarE
3 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2013
And you need an infinite number of turbines if the wind speed goes to zero across the entire country.

"You need 150x current wind turbines at todays wind amount which is almost zero." - ParkerTard

Such a condition is so rare that I would take it as a sign from God that he want's a National Holiday.

Do you oppose the wishes of God, ParkerTard?

VendicarE
3 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2013
Why doesn't your estimate of existing fossil fueled power take into consideration the cost to the environment of using the atmosphere as a sewer?

"And electricity is costing more in the real world." - ParkerTard

Get back to us when those costs are added in to your estimates of existing power costs.
slack
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2013
Puerile VendicarE (which means 'to avenge' - in Italian) does no service at all to the renewable energy debate or, in fact to any other debate because of his infantile name-calling.
If you, like me, expect people to eventually agree that we need to change our life-styles to reduce pollution (all pollution, not simply CO2 but plastics, hydrocarbons in general and heat generation due to high-power-consumption processes such as the Haber process) your approach is the least promising, in fact it is damaging because of its polarising nature.
So, VendicarE, if you're not a fifth column for the opposition (which, I'm growing increasingly suspicious, you might be) stop these ad hominem attacks.
These quick and dirty little aspersions do nothing to further MY cause which, I hope, is your cause too.
The road to a better world is NOT that easy.
You need to use logic and quote facts in pointing out errors in opponents' arguments.
I agree it's harder, but if you can't (or won't) please GO AWAY!
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2013
Polarize... Identify... Separate... Eradicate...

The placation of evil and ignorance is self defeating.

hangman04
1.6 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2013
I find it interesting how some point out facts like:
1) it kills more birds
2) only some areas have wind potential
3) we have huge fossil reserves
4) or that suspect that some obvious factors like: maintenance or life cycle.

First of all we don't care about birds at all, we only care about ourselves and the the fact that our way of life is threatened. This is basic human behavior. If wind tech will become more profitable than fossil we will adapt it unless the aggregate costs of using it (maybe we kill all birds and insects will kill all our crops so we starve to death - extreme example just to make a point) will be higher than global warming, which i doubt it.

The second argument i came across is that not all places are suitable for wind generation, but tha... its not we extract gas and coal from every ditch, there are areas unique for each resource and i understand that some countries / groups have a problem with the shift in resource centers as they loose leverage.

hangman04
1.6 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2013
The 3rd point i want to make is regarding the existing coal reserves. If wind will prove to be cheaper (and it will probably be if not now i suspect that in 10-20 years) is doesn't mean that the whole world will switch on it. Because closing all fossil infrastructure abruptly has its on costs on society. Countries will export to places which cant afford innovation and fossil entrepreneurs will switch from places where is no need to places where there is. I suspect that in following decades developed countries will change their power generation portfolios with empathizing on "green" and neutral carbon sources and less fossils.
And the fourth point is only speculation since we don't have the full study with arguments and formulas and research methodology, but only a summary of the conclusion chapter, i suspect.
Steven_Anderson
1.1 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2013
Wind is only part of the answer. Solar will be a cost effective method within 10 years but neither can supply all the electricity, it's not reliable enough. Please look over the LFTR Nuclear Reactor links at http://rawcell.com and then sign the petition for a 10 million dollar end to end cost study of my proposal to convert all Coal plants to LFTR Nuclear reactors. This accounts for only 42% of the US energy production. A large quantity of the remained is definitely economically feasible with wind and soon economical with solar without subsidies in the USA. In 2009 Cadillac made a concept car powered by thorium that needed only 8 grams of thorium to provide 30,000 miles of driving (accounting for a 30% efficiency rating). Unlike the other technologies LFTR's run 24x7 and can handle power requirement surges. If we fund these technologies we can be free of CO2 forever. Also wrote a paper on "A Case for Moving Forward with Carbon Capture". Your opinions are appreciated!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (13) Feb 10, 2013
First of all we don't care about birds at all, we only care about ourselves and the the fact that our way of life is threatened.
It doesn't kill more birds. It kills fewer birds. Read the fucking thread. I bothered to look it up for you, you should be polite enough to read it.
hangman04
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2013
I read it kills fewer and even read the arguments in the posts that were agreeing with this, but my point was that even it killed more we, as a society, wouldn't really care as we didn't care about global warning till it started to affect us in a more direct way.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2013
So no one has still answered the question...

"how many windmills do you need in operation...to provide 200,000 TWh?"

Anyone, anyone, Beuller?

You aren't answering because it highlights the inadequacy of wind generated energy for a modern technologically advanced civilization. Oh and when Africa starts really developing you can almost double that figure...
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013
how many windmills do you need in operation...to provide 200,000 TWh?

Roughly 90 million. (extrapolated from current energy produced in germany by wind power per year and the number of installed windmills. Though the actual number could be as low as half of that if these were to be built exclusively off-shore)

But that's a very meaningless figure (as meaningless as saying we should build 16000 nuclear reactors to cover world demand)
No one is arguing that having 100% of all power come from wind is sensible. Wind is part of an energy MIX.

Getting 100k turbines going per country in a relatively short time is not unrealistic. We're already at the 20k mark over here and the number of installed turbines has only really taken off 10 years ago.

Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2013
So that's $135,000,000,000,000 *snicker*, with how much land usage (good luck building a significant number offshore btw)? And we're getting hysterical about building nuclear plants.

Wow.

But thanks for having the guts to answer the question honestly.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013
And I do get your argument about a MIX, but you people seem to discount anything but renewable.

EXACTLY what MIX are you going to use to offset those stupendous costs in both land and dollars? Not to mention the maintenance nightmare on even say 20 million turbines....
hangman04
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2013
And I do get your argument about a MIX, but you people seem to discount anything but renewable.

EXACTLY what MIX are you going to use to offset those stupendous costs in both land and dollars? Not to mention the maintenance nightmare on even say 20 million turbines....


Basically you have to factor 2 things average operating cost and cost of opportunity (for the land in our case), if these 2 barriers will permit we will indeed make those 90 mil turbines. If it doesn't it will be mostly governmental PR founded by the contributors.

Regarding the maintenance nightmare we have been experiencing it since we 1st build the wheel, i don't think mankind has created so far something that doesn't need maintenance... and tbh i don't think wind turbines need way more maintenance then other "mechanical tools"...
VendicarE
4 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2013
Wind tops US sources of new electricity generation in 2012

http://arstechnic...in-2012/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2013
I read it kills fewer and even read the arguments in the posts that were agreeing with this, but my point was that even it killed more we, as a society, wouldn't really care as we didn't care about global warning till it started to affect us in a more direct way.
And yet we stop dam projects in order to save a few rodents? And we hold up the Alaska pipeline for decades because caribou might not like it? And we reroute the transcanada pipeline to avoid sensitive areas? Too many examples.

I think you're just another human hater. Am I wrong?
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013
with how much land usage

Off-shore there's practically as much land as you want.
Even on shore the land usage is quite minimal. Wind turbines have hardly any footprint. Google for aerial views of wind farms, and you will notice that you can plant them right inside arable land while taking up next to none of the space.

So that's $135,000,000,000,000 *snicker*

Strawman argument.

good luck building a significant number offshore btw)?

It's already being done. No luck required.

Regarding the maintenance nightmare

The 'incredible maintenance cost' hasn't materialized over here. Total maintenance costs over 20 years liftime have come out to about 25% of total cost. This means that a wind turbine is amortized after 4-5 years (3.5 years amortization for setup cost and another 1 year for maintenance). The rest is all profit.
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
The fraudulent report discussed in this story requires a tripling of natural gas prices for the math to work.

"In terms of wind being cheaper than combined cycle natural gas, the key assumption behind that conclusion is that new gas contract prices will rise from the $4 per GJ that most power plant are paying today, to $12 per GJ for new plant."

http://www.climat...il-fuels
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2013
Off-shore there's practically as much land as you want.


False.

Even on shore the land usage is quite minimal.


*Guffaw*

Strawman argument.


No, that's a real world fact. It's going to cost all the current world GDP for two years to pay for this...

It's already being done. No luck required.


You can only build so far off shore, and the maintenance is going to go up significantly the further out you build.

The 'incredible maintenance cost' hasn't materialized over here.


You aren't servicing 20 million turbines either...in fact it's just over 20,000.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2013
EXACTLY what MIX are you going to use to offset those stupendous costs in both land and dollars?

Really depends on where in the world you are and what types of energy are available. Wind, wave, PV, solar thermal...use whatever is there.
But if I look at our local energy mix we're already at 12.2% of primary energy (and if you count just electricity then we just broke the 20% barrier) with the energy mix. And that pretty much from next to nothing 10 years ago.

Costs: Building those 16000 nuclear powerplants to cover world energy requirements would cost as much as your figure. So? What does that mean? Nothing.

Land use: As noted: windpower uses very little land. PV and solar thermal uses substantial amounts of land (however they can be built on any type of land, or along highways as the do over here - unlike other powerplants which require special siting)
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2013
*Guffaw*

Since you refuse to google I did it for you:
http://static.zoo...0e98.jpg
Think this takes away a lot of arable land? Think again.

You can only build so far off shore

Wrong. Floating off shore wind - already installed:
http://en.wikiped..._turbine
Installation depths (for the anchors) have already exceeded 130 meters,

You aren't servicing 20 million turbines either...in fact it's just over 20,000.

Well, I don't see where germany would have (or need) 20 million windmills. I guess we'll top out at somewhere around the 100k mark. There's a number of good, long-term jobs in maintenance. And it's certainly preferrable to spend that money on people rather than on fuel.
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013

But if I look at our local energy mix we're already at 12.2% of primary energy


In the US the renewables are mostly hydro and biomass. And the biomass is mostly burning food ethanol).

So, back up your numbers.

What is max and min and average PV and Wind output where you are.

The min is easy. Zero. Thats important. For every MW of PV and Wind you need 1 GW of backup power.

And the backup power like gas is cheaper than PV and Wind and it has to be built because PV and wind goes to Zero GW quite regularly.

"About 16% of global final energy consumption comes from renewable resources, with 10% of all energy from traditional biomass, mainly used for heating, and 3.4% from hydroelectricity. New renewables (small hydro, modern biomass, wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels) accounted for another 3%"

PV and Wind is a joke. Small hydro and ethanol and geothermal dwarf PV and wind.

Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2013
Geothermal has much more potential than Wind and solar by far. I'd be more inclined to go that route, except that we already have a proven, safe, and reliable technology...fission.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
Since you refuse to google I did it for you:
http://static.zoo...0e98.jpg


Fewer pretty pictures and more facts please.

Installation depths (for the anchors) have already exceeded 130 meters,


You're going to run out of "land" there too is all that says to me. Not to mention the higher maintenance costs for those units.

Well, I don't see where germany would have (or need) 20 million windmills. I guess we'll top out at somewhere around the 100k mark.


What makes you think you're going to "top out" at any number much less a measly 100k?
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013
Geothermal has much more potential than Wind and solar by far. I'd be more inclined to go that route, except that we already have a proven, safe, and reliable technology...fission.


If you ever check Californias energy stats, Wind and Solar go up and down like a yo-yo while the other "renwables" are nice and steady.

http://www.caiso....tus.html

And quite often Wind in California drops way down to almost zero just as the day starts.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
The irony here is that while on an industrial scale I'm vehemently opposed to wind, I'm currently pricing putting a small unit on my property...possibly two.

It's not that I don't think wind has a role, I just don't think it has a PRAYER of supplying the energy needs of human civilization...especially when extrapolated into the future.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2013
I dug around a bit to see if aynone had done a study on how much it would actually cost to run the energy infrastructure with 100% renewables (german only, sorry). It's from the Fraunhofer Institute which is one of the big scientific powerhouses in germany.
https://192.168.0...-3340-42

Central figures:
Operational costs after conversion: 120bn Euros per year - this includes storage by using power-to-syngas(methane) for bridging gaps in power production (for comparison: the current energy mix costs us 190bn Euros per year - and this is ignoring subsidies for coal/nuclear or costs for CO2 certificates)

assumptions made in the analysis:
1) constant energy consumption (in reality energy consumption per capita has been dropping)
2) no energy grid (in reality we're in a european energy grid)

If we postulate just 70% renewables then no storage (power-to-gas) is needed at all.

Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
constant energy consumption (in reality energy consumption per capita has been dropping)


Sorry this is like AGW deniers pointing out that the last ten years there's been a cooling trend. The fact is that global energy consumption has been steadily increasing and will be for the foreseeable future.
hangman04
2 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2013
And yet we stop dam projects in order to save a few rodents? And we hold up the Alaska pipeline for decades because caribou might not like it? And we reroute the transcanada pipeline to avoid sensitive areas?
I think you're just another human hater. Am I wrong?


Lolz this is more and more a flame war than an argumentative debate which started by the fact u didn't properly read my 1st statement which was pro wind.
I have no idea what u mean by "human hater"... But i sill consider that on average the human society has mostly put its short term well being above other things like environment or future generation, otherwise we wouldn't be facing the problems we are facing nowadays. Also there are trustworthy groups that fight for a change in the way of how we do things. But the few and the greedy which are part of our society, whether we like it or not, are "agreeing to disagree". Put yourself the question what would have happened if re rooting would not have been possible?
NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2013
Fraunhofer Institute


Didn't the report claim millions of jobs would be created, when in fact Spains experience is millions of jobs destroyed.

The only thing that will save Europe is shale gas. Companies are fleeing high energy cost countries and moving jobs to low energy countries.

BASF " is already installing a new formic acid plant in Geismar, Louisiana that benefits from fracking-based feedstocks. At the moment, the company is reviewing other opportunities for additional investments, the CEO said."

http://www.bloomb...-1-.html

I salute Germany's attempt to destroy its economy. It will be a valuable lesson.
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2013
Fraunhofer Institute


Didn't the report claim millions of jobs would be created, when in fact Spains experience is millions of jobs destroyed.
[...]
BASF " is already installing a new formic acid plant in Geismar, Louisiana that benefits from fracking-based feedstocks. At the moment, the company is reviewing other opportunities for additional investments, the CEO said."

http://www.bloomb...-1-.html

I salute Germany's attempt to destroy its economy. It will be a valuable lesson.


HAHAHAHA

NutPecker renders his entire post to mere chicanery by tellin a big, fat, juicy lie of omission in its very first sentence. True to form, and as expected.

Spain suffered catastrophic losses in employment due to the implementation of fiscal austerity measures at the behest of the very Vampire Capitalists of which NutPecker is tool --not because Germany invested in Solar and Wind power generation.

Wanker.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2013
Didn't the report claim millions of jobs would be created,

I don't know where you get 'millions of jobs' quote (care to link?) but currently there are 370000 jobs in the alternative energy sector in germany (and the number has risen by 8% just in the last year). The jobs are pretty evenly split between biomass, wind and solar, too (with a small addition of 6% of people working in the hydro and geothermal sectors)

The plan is to get a million jobs in that sector till 2030.

So yeah... I can't hear you over the sound of our 'economy crashing'. We were actually one of the very few countries in europe that came through the recent recession pretty much unscathed. And that is in no small part due to big exports in that sector.

djr
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2013
It's not that I don't think wind has a role, I just don't think it has a PRAYER of supplying the energy needs of human civilization...especially when extrapolated into the future.

Anatalias keeps repeating that no one is proposing that wind will be the sole source of energy - but to use your term "you people" just don't listen. But yes - wind can play a significant role in supplying world energy - take a long hard look at Denmark, Germany, Scotland, Spain, Portugal. All of these countries are getting a significant portion of their energy from wind - and the cost curve is coming down. So many lies, so little time.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2013
I understand that a lot of countries are doing well with a mix of wind and other technologies presently.

I also can look at a graph and extrapolate the energy needs of a civilization when looking into the past and comparing it to the present. I don't know what kind of energy you envision us using when we have twenty space elevators and make two week trips around the solar system, but I'd bet a billion dollars it's not going to be wind power except perhaps as an anachronism.

OTOH we still might be using fission if we can't make fusion work....
NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2013
The german people are getting scrwed.

"600.000 German Households can no longer afford to pay their energy bills"

If they can pay, they are paying grotesque subsidies.

"From a mere € 43,- per four-person household (4p-household) in 2000, these costs have in the meantime risen to € 919,- in 2012. By 2015, a further increase to € 1.386,- is to be expected."

http://www.thegwp...ghtmare/
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2013
I don't know what kind of energy you envision us using when we have twenty space elevators

News flash: Space elevators require almost no power.

and make two week trips around the solar system

Solar is attractive in outer space. So is fusion.

Coal, oil, gas? Not so much.

I'd bet a billion dollars it's not going to be wind power

Be glad it's going to be a few years until we get a space elevator (if ever). Because that's a bet you'll lose.

antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2013
"600.000 German Households can no longer afford to pay their energy bills" If they can pay, they are paying grotesque subsidies.

I think you did miss a bit of research there:

The cost of power PRODUCTION has actually gotten lower. The rise in costs is due to grid owners (big power companies) charging more for the use of the grid, and large companies getting ever bigger cuts to their electricity bills - which are then redistributed to the average homeowner to pay.

The cost per kwH has risen for the average Joe from 2005 to 2012 from 18.2 to 26ct (which comes out triple the rate if you'd just account for inflation).
For the industry: prices have risen from 7.8 to 8.95ct per kWh. Which is BELOW the general inflation rate for the same time.

But things are in the (political) works to stop this freeloading.
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2013
I trust the Germans to know what is best for Germany.

"The german people are getting scrwed." - ParkerTard

On the other hand ParkerTard has continually been exposed as a congenital liar who can't be trusted.

Some information on his denialist source....

http://www.source...undation
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2013
modernmystic - "I also can look at a graph and extrapolate the energy needs of a civilization when looking into the past and comparing it to the present. I don't know what kind of energy you envision using"

We envision a very bright future - using a mix of energy sources - only time will tell what the percentages will look like - it will include wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, fuel from algae, nuclear (fusion), otec, wave, tidal, etc.

"I also can look at a graph and extrapolate the energy needs of a civilization" I don't believe you can. Review this one study - and you will see that wind power can meet a significant portion of our energy needs into the future - back of the napkin studies are often flawed - confirmation bias is a bitch. http://www.nature...683.html
roland77
1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2013
The green propaganda machine in action, but what are the facts? With about 30% of cheap wind power contribution the electricity cost in South Australia have gone up by 120% in the last five years making it the most expensive electricity on the planet. Naturally, the average power consumption has gone down because people cannot afford using electrical power anymore. South Australia is on the path to the dark ages for absolutely no good reasons. Where ever you live, green ideology will not contribute to stop climate change; it will produce poverty.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2013
roland - please provide references to support your argument that wind power in Australia is the cause of a 120% price increase. All resources I have looked at say that on shore wind is very cost competitive with competitor systems - and when you look at new installation against new installation - it is very competitive - you accuse the article of being the green propaganda machine - I think it is you who uses propaganda to fit your political outlook. I will give you an article on wind in Texas as a resource - http://cleantechn...-plants/
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2013

News flash: Space elevators require almost no power.


Yeah, I know....

Do you know how much power is required to manufacture and maintain a system like that? Well that might not be fair, we'll probably have better manufacturing by then anyway.

Solar is attractive in outer space. So is fusion.


LMFAO, you ACTUALLY said solar is attractive for making 2 week trips around the solar system??? Do YOU know how much power is required for that? Newsflash: A hell of a lot more than you can get from miles of solar panels...

Coal, oil, gas? Not so much.


You like to preach to the choir? I don't understand where this came from, I've never advocated Coal, oil, or gas. We shouldn't have been producing our energy from fire for decades...any more than we should be from windmills...


Be glad it's going to be a few years until we get a space elevator (if ever). Because that's a bet you'll lose.


Not a chance.... :)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2013
I don't believe you can. Review this one study - and you will see that wind power can meet a significant portion of our energy needs into the future -


Very interesting study. I'm of course suspect of anything published in "Nature" about renewable energy as they have a blatant bias, but if it's even close it's more energy than I suspected was there.

Nonetheless there are models of nuclear power which have no theoretical limits to power production, and despite the overblown concerns over it's safety it continues to be an extremely safe form of power generation and will only get more so with time.

Therefore I see no reason to throw money after the one when the infrastructure, feasibility, and unlimited potential of the other is taken into consideration. It's like making a long term investment in buying a mobile home instead of a mansion on prime real estate....
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2013
Do you know how much power is required to manufacture and maintain a system like that?

Manufacture? I don't know. But since that's done on Earth (and presumably the cable will be a...cable) the amount of energy required isn't going to be that big.
Maintain? None at all.

LMFAO, you ACTUALLY said solar is attractive for making 2 week trips around the solar system???

I thought the 'two week roundtrip' thing was facetious. If you reall want to do 2 week roundtrips then I agree that we'll need something VASTLY more serious in terms of energy. Fusion or antimatter drives - or something entirely different.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2013
roland - please provide references to support your argument that wind power in Australia is the cause of a 120% price increase. All resources I have looked at say that on shore wind is very cost competitive with competitor systems


In the UK wind subsidies are huge.

"Under the government's Feed-In Tariff (FIT) scheme, which aims to make renewable energies competitive with fossil fuels, the size of a turbine is measured not by height but by power output. If a turbine pumps out more than 500kW, its owners receive 9.5p per kilowatt hour. But a 'smaller' sub-500kW one receives a subsidy of 17.5p per kilowatt hour"

http://www.specta...nd-scam/

9.5p is DOUBLE what I pay for electricity. And 17.5p is almost quadruple.

And those are just the subsidies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2013
I trust the Germans to know what is best for Germany.
Ahawhawhaw you said that just to be funny yes? But it illuminates a fundamental Truth: the fate of no country is safe in the hands of it's occupants. This is why occupants have NEVER been allowed to run their country, no matter what they think.

It is simply too important an issue to be left up to amateurs, rubes, groupies, religionists, and the like .
djr
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2013
roland - please provide references to support your argument that wind power in Australia is the cause of a 120% price increase. All resources I have looked at say that on shore wind is very cost competitive with competitor systems

In the UK wind subsidies are huge.

Read the question I posed. Read the response you made to said question. I am sure you don't see the problem. I will point it out for you.

The response you gave in no way answers the question that was posed.

Today's article was talking about Australia. The article points out that even without subisdies - wind power is cheaper than power generated with conventional fuels in Australia. You are incapable of addressing the subject at hand.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2013
Otto: But it illuminates a fundamental Truth: the fate of no country is safe in the hands of it's occupants.

Are you proposing a monarchy, or a dictatorship, or just let Otto run the world? I am confused by your position here.
roland77
1 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2013
It is a combination of wind and solar in South Australia with a lack of investment in the previous infrastructure that is causing the price increases. If green power is available it has preference and the coal power stations operate idle but naturally we pay for that. If we have suddenly no wind very expensive gas operated peak demand generators have to be used to compensate. The wind power is payed by the output on the windmill if it is needed or not and so a lot power it is actually wasted. The consumer pays for the line losses, the transmission lines and all the transformers that have to be changed so that solar power can actually be distributed via the grid. My last average price was $0.35 per kWh but we had an increase and I have not received the last power bill.
roland77
1 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2013
This is a different angel on the wind statement: decarbonisesa.com/2013/02/08/ask-the-right-question/
djr
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2013
roland - here is my original question - in response to your unsubstantiated claim - "roland - please provide references to support your argument that wind power in Australia is the cause of a 120% price increase.

The only reference you have finally provided - I took the time to read - and it actually supports the notion that wind is cheap. Let me give you one quote from the article

"The price of electricity is telling: wind cheapest, then nuclear, then miles of daylight, then solar thermal."

There is a fundamental flaw to the article. It insists that we must compare baseload generation. This is the fundamental argument that is thrown around incessantly on this forum. Wind will not supply baseload without storage - that increases the cost of the power. But - wind can be integrated onto a smart grid - currently up to about 30% - in the future this percentage will increase.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2013
But it illuminates... just let Otto run the world? I am confused
Otto is eminently unqualified for anything but observing and reflecting. Govts have not been allowed to operate Unattended for a very long time.

Communism has never been communism, yes? One of the first things that Stalin did when he was Placed into power, was to kill all the true communists. Communism has never been anything but dictatorship and martial law. Exactly like medieval europe and the church.

So what makes you think that democracies aren't similarly Machined for public consumption? The world is too dangerous a place, and humanity too precious a thing, to ever let Events proceed by themselves.

The Inevitable can be Planned. This is done by dividing the people up and setting them against one another in Creative and Constructive ways. Stability and Progress have been the persistent Result.

The bible is an instruction manual for world domination. It describes the establishment of Empire
djr
5 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2013
Sorry Otto - you have me totally lost - I have no idea what you are proposing. It is clear that there are very manipulative forces within our world (check out the Koch brothers), and money equals a very distorted power dynamic. But interestingly - Karl Rove spent huge sums of money this last election - and got nowhere - so it is not linear, and there are balancing forces within the system (media, education, free (ish) people etc). I am certainly not sure what you are proposing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2013
You are not thinking nearly big enough. Re rove
http://www.youtub...QG-Tw9FY

-The very most dangerous thing to civilization has always been war. War has repeatedly ended civilizations, as attested by the layered city mounds dotted throughout the middle east. Accumulated knowledge, humankinds most precious Possession, has repeatedly been lost.

But an enochian Priesthood of Leaders had discovered the key to preserving this knowledge through the flood of humanity upon the earth...

Leaders of opposing tribes could well understand that their mutual problems could be solved by cooperating to ensure that wars would proceed according to Plan and that the Results could benefit both sides.

These Leaders intermarried, and a new Tribe emerged. A Tribe of Leaders, who acceppted the obvious Fact that the people are the natural enemies of rulers everywhere.

This Meme spread throughout the world, and Leaders began making war on the people by pitting them against each other.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2013
This is most obvious in the classic greek culture. City-state kings always went to the oracle at delphi to find out who would fight against whom. These wars were fought with large masses of slow-moving citizen hoplites and were highly predictable and Manageable.

The alexandrian campaign was an obviously Scripted affair. Millions of hapless persian youth were led starving and parched into killing fields at issus and gaugamela, to be dispatched by professional mercenaries.

Europe was ruled by an extended crime Family who were all related and all descended from charlemagne. They moved borders and staged wars to keep the populations in check while perfecting the technologies and tactics necessary for the invasion of the western hemisphere and the destruction of the extremely dangerous cultures there.

At other times in our history It may have been less obvious but It has always been there, always at work, protecting Itself from the forces which threaten the very best of humanity. Empire
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2013
"The Spanish Parliament approved a law on Thursday that cuts subsidies for alternative energy technologies, backtracking on its push for green power."

http://www.bishop...you.html

"That deficit, built up through years of the government holding down electricity prices at a level that would not cover regulated costs including renewables premiums, is at the heart of Spain's energy sector woes."

"The problem was that the cost of the subsidies were not passed on fully to consumers because that would have pushed prices to unprecedented highs."

Finally ... a little honesty. The real cost of renewables is unaffordable.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2013
"The UK government has been planning the development of a 'next generation' of nuclear power plants in the region for some time, but with the price of renewables falling quickly and the costs of nuclear rising, it is looking increasingly likely that the plans will have to be scrapped"

http://cleantechn...nlikely/

So look - I can play the same game Parker - go to a left wing pro renewables web site (opposite of course) - pick some random quotes - and pretend that I have contributed to the conversation.
roland77
1 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2013
.dir, a bit of history for you. In agent times humans could only use their own power to prepare food, get around and do other things. Then humans discovered animal power and that provided humans with a denser energy source. Most likely about 3 thousand years ago man discovered the power of renewables like wind power and the countries that mastered these flourished. But the industrial revolution was only possible to utilise an independent high density energy form like coal and oil. Countries that mastered the use of coal and oil progressed into what we call the twenties century. The future will be higher density energy like Uranium and Thorium;1mill times denser than coal. At this point in time gas will be the fuel of choice as it will be incredibly cheap and abundant. The countries that have gas and are able to utilise it will progress. Utilising intermittent wind power is moving back into the stone age of energy use and that will only create poverty; my power bill proves this.
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2013
"The UK government has been planning the development of a 'next generation' of nuclear power plants in the region for some time, but with the price of renewables falling quickly and the costs of nuclear rising, it is looking increasingly likely that the plans will have to be scrapped"


In the UK they have 100 years of shale gas on the way.

Nuclear will not be built unless they get the same subsidies as the massive ones wind gets.

But gas will kill off nuclear.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2013
Utilising intermittent wind power is moving back into the stone age of energy use and that will only create poverty; my power bill proves this.

You are wrong on this point. Today's wind turbines are highly sophisticated pieces of equipment. They generate large amounts of power - at a comparable cost to fossil fuel generated power. We have already posted masses of data that support this premise. Yes there is an intermittancy issue - and we have beat this horse to death on this board. The intermittancy issue is being addressed by the engineers. Currently we are able to integrate about 30% wind power on to the grid. As the new technologies evolve - this will undoubtedly increase - but even if it does not - 30% power from wind is very significant - and does not jive with your statement about moving back into the stone age. You never answered my request for a reference to support your outlandish claim about wind causing the price hike in Australian power - typical!!!
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2013
Today's wind turbines are highly sophisticated pieces of equipment. They generate large amounts of power - at a comparable cost to fossil fuel generated power.


No they don't. Wind is heavily subsidized and whent he subsidies are threatened they stop building wind turbines.

Fossil fuel power plants last 50 years. Wind turbines die after 12-15.

Wind turbines slaughter eagles. If the official fine for slaughtering eagles was ever imposed on wind farms, they would be paying millions of dollars in fines each year for each turbine.

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2013
...your approach is the least promising, in fact it is damaging because of its polarising nature.So, VendicarE, if you're not a fifth column for the opposition (which, I'm growing increasingly suspicious, you might be) stop these ad hominem attacks.

I think this is becoming the consensus.
One to relevant things.
We are tending to look at "mass" power as the solution, which was more efficient for coal, etc., however, putting small turbines (or optimized turbines) on every house is cheap, and will do wonders. There is almost always wind above 40 feet, and gets better with heigh. Imagine most peoples' roofs are 30 feet already, add a flagpole...
I've often wondered if there is an exploitable potential difference with height, there is after all a voltage difference during a thunderstorm. Is a smaller potential there all the time?
roland77
1 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2013
.dir. The intermittent wind power is paid at the windmill output into the grid; all transmission cost are carried by the consumer making wind electrical power look cheap. For this reason all "wind power cost calculations" showing wind to be at low cost. This naturally conveniently ignores the exorbitant subsidies, extra backup and balancing costs, additional transmission costs, etc. If you take levelized costs into consideration then wind energy is much more expensive than any conventional source we have. This is reflected in my power bill that increased dramatically with the introduction of wind and solar in South Australia. The more wind power you produce the more inefficient all other power generators become as the wind power must be used with preference by law. The money wasted on wind mills could be better spend for projects that actually would make a difference to climate change.
roland77
1 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2013
The Alchemist. This might interest you below link. But in regards to your comment, not everything that is possible is also practical. www.youtube.com/w...0XLiW8dI