Dutch open 'world's largest offshore' wind farm

May 8, 2017
But the Dutch government has committed to ensuring that some 14 percent of its energy comes from renewable sources such as wind and solar power by 2020

Dutch officials on Monday opened what is being billed as one of the world's largest offshore wind farms, with 150 turbines spinning in action far out in the North Sea.

Over the next 15 years, the Gemini windpark, which lies some 85 kilometres (53 miles) off the northern coast of The Netherlands, will meet the energy needs of about 1.5 million people.

At full winds the windpark has a generating capacity of some 600 megawatts, and will help supply some 785,000 Dutch households with renewable energy, the company said.

"We are now officially in the operational stage," the company's managing director Matthias Haag told AFP, celebrating the completion of a project first conceived in 2010.

The 2.8-billion-euro ($3 billion) project is a collaboration between the Canadian independent renewable energy company Northland Power, wind turbine manufacturer Siemens Wind Power, Dutch maritime contractor Van Oord and waste processing company HVC.

It has been "quite a complex" undertaking, Haag said, "particularly as this windpark lies relatively far offshore... so it took quite a lot of logistics".

Gemini will contribute about 13 percent of the country's total supply, and about 25 percent of its wind power, he added.

It will also help reduce emissions of carbon-dioxide emissions, among the so-called greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, by 1.25 million tons, the company says.

The Netherlands remains dependant on fossil fuels which still make up about 95 percent of its , according to a 2016 report from the ministry of economics affairs.

But the Dutch government has committed to ensuring that some 14 percent of its comes from such as and solar power by 2020, and 16 percent by 2023, with the aim of being a carbon neutral by 2050.

Gemini "is seen as a stepping stone" in The Netherlands, and has "shown that a very large project can be built on time, and in a very safe environment," Haag added.

Explore further: Shell-led consortium to build 700MW offshore Dutch wind farm

Related Stories

Dutch trains now all powered by wind energy

January 10, 2017

All Dutch trains are now 100 percent powered by electricity generated by wind energy, the national railway company NS said Tuesday, calling it a world first.

Vestas in $1.2B deal to build huge wind power farm in Norway

February 23, 2016

Danish company Vestas Wind Systems A/S says it has been awarded a 1.1 billion euro ($1.2 billion) deal to supply 278 wind turbines for Norwegian power company Statkraft and its partners for a wind power project in central ...

Largest US offshore wind farm gets green light

January 25, 2017

Local authorities approved the largest offshore wind farm in the United States on Wednesday, to be located near Long Island and capable of powering some 50,000 households.

Recommended for you

Startup Pi out to slice the charging cord

September 19, 2017

Silicon Valley youngster Pi on Monday claimed it had developed the world's first wireless charger that does away with cords or mats to charge devices.

110 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

tblakely1357
5 / 5 (2) May 08, 2017
I'm curious how they'll hold up when battered by a big storm.... not an uncommon occurrence in the North Sea.
greenonions1
4.5 / 5 (11) May 08, 2017
Turbines have withstood an F5 tornado - with winds reaching close to 300 mph. The turbines have a hurricane mode - and are of course designed to withstand the elements.
http://www.aweabl...h-winds/
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) May 09, 2017
Off shore windparks have come a long way in the past few years. Only 5 years ago they were touted as expensive. Just this year, in the latest round of bidding for german off-shore windparks, some came in without wanting any kind of subsidy.

Expect these to get even cheaper in the future.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (11) May 09, 2017
Thanks to cheap fossil fuels, these behemoth bird-choppers can be manufactured, transported and installed, and the lights can be kept on when wind is not blowing.
It is a good example of how it is possible "being a carbon neutral by 2050" just relying on people's cognitive dissonance and taxpayers' hard-earned money.
Max5000
4 / 5 (8) May 09, 2017
@ antialias

This has always been the case with new technology. It takes some time to scale up and become cost effective for the masses. In the meantime a large part of visionless people continue to ridicule all efforts. History shows they did the same with the development of electricity, lights, cars, tv's, planes, email, the world wide web, mp3 players, etc. Even with the acceptance of evolution and global warming you see it continue till this day. But once again you see that it works. Now at the same prices as fossil fuels and in 20 years they will be even much cheaper compared to fossil fuels. With designs of even 50MW now in the making. Add to that the development of ever bigger and better energy storage technologies and the ever more robust European super grid with energy shared instantly across EU countries energy installations, windfarms, solar, bio, nuclear, greenwaste power stations, etc and we are really moving forward on a cleaner less polluted future.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) May 09, 2017
This has always been the case with new technology. It takes some time to scale up and become cost effective for the masses.

True. But the speed at which it became so cheap has taken everyone (even us 'green' guys) by surprise. Same for solar. The way the costs in these sectors has plummeted over the years is beyond what anyone - even the most optimistic of analysts - had thought possible.
jackmurdock
4.5 / 5 (8) May 09, 2017
Thanks to cheap fossil fuels, these behemoth bird-choppers can be manufactured, transported and installed, and the lights can be kept on when wind is not blowing.
It is a good example of how it is possible "being a carbon neutral by 2050" just relying on people's cognitive dissonance and taxpayers' hard-earned money.


It's called an investment: where you use a tool (fossil fuels) to create something that will be better (wind energy) later on. Should they be using donkeys to make and install them?
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) May 09, 2017
It's called an investment: where you use a tool (fossil fuels)...
It is a kind of investment that has resulted in almost no CO2 reduction even after trillions of euros spent.
Should they be using donkeys...
Donkeys are much more ecologically friendly, they do not slaughter birds and other endangered species in midair.
https://pbs.twimg...hgHW.jpg
greenonions1
3.9 / 5 (7) May 09, 2017
Between 1975 and 2013 - global C02 emissions went from 15 billion, to 32 billion tonnes. Thanks to the transition to renewable energy getting underway - the last 3 years have seen those emissions plateau. We will now watch them decline - as more and more fossil fuel plants are retired, and renewables expand. Electric cars are just getting started. This is to say nothing of the heavy pollutants from coal and oil - being kept out of our atmosphere. https://www.thegu...missions
Edenlegaia
4.8 / 5 (5) May 10, 2017
Thanks to cheap fossil fuels, these behemoth bird-choppers can be manufactured, transported and installed, and the lights can be kept on when wind is not blowing.
It is a good example of how it is possible "being a carbon neutral by 2050" just relying on people's cognitive dissonance and taxpayers' hard-earned money.

Maybe we could install something to gather bird corpses and reintroduce them into food chain. That'd solve the problem....and your worrisome hysteria towards renewable energy.
windturbines
3.4 / 5 (5) May 10, 2017
Wind turbines are being installed throughout the world in an increasing manner. It is exciting for me because this is a leading source of renewable energy, and contribute to sustainability. It is also exciting for me because in the past I have conducted unique research on the topic with my research partners. Dr. Gurdal Ertek.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (6) May 10, 2017
Maybe we could install something to gather bird corpses

Bird corpses. Off shore? Really? Must be those masses of oceanic birds no one has ever heard of.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) May 10, 2017
Thanks to the transition from coal to natural gas/fracking, there is no meaningful increase in CO2 emissions. Natural gas is not a bridge to intermittent renewables, it's a plank.
https://pbs.twimg...jQiw.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...ZJF8.jpg
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (4) May 10, 2017
Maybe we could install something to gather bird corpses

Bird corpses. Off shore? Really? Must be those masses of oceanic birds no one has ever heard of.

Well, if they sink to the ocean floor, that particular bio-"sphere" benefits from all that extra bio carbon input.
greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (7) May 10, 2017
Rome was not built in a day - but it is sure going up fast....

Almost 90% of new power in Europe from renewable sources in 2016


https://www.thegu...ces-2016

WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) May 11, 2017
"By 2014, the European Union had spent over a trillion dollars on large scale renewable energy"
"According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Germany's carbon dioxide emissions increased in 2015 by 0.8 percent."
"As a means of producing useful electrical power, wind and solar are very expensive generating technologies because of their low capacity factors and because of their non-dispatchability and intermittency."
http://institutef...stments/
Dingbone
May 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
carbon_unit
4 / 5 (4) May 11, 2017
Maybe we could install something to gather bird corpses
Why gather up all that fish food??? (See, problem already solved.)

If those who call wind generators 'bird choppers' really cared about birds, they would do something about cats, a problem orders of magnitude greater than wind farms. Also, fossil fuel production does enormous damage to bird habitats and probably outright kill quite a few too.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) May 11, 2017
Maybe cats can generate more reliable energy than intermittent renewables to drop CO2 emissions.
"German carbon emissions rise in 2016 despite coal use drop"
https://www.clean...use-drop
"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy"
https://www.spect...-energy/
"Infinite and perpetual motion from cats. Infinite and clean energy."
https://www.youtu...xBhqcjqY
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) May 11, 2017

If those who call wind generators 'bird choppers' really cared about birds,

They would do something about coal powerplants - because the exhausts kill far more birds than windmills.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) May 11, 2017
Dingbone - your stats are total rubbish. Wind and solar are basically at grid parity now - and in many parts of the world - they are the cheapest energy source. Saying the cost "150 times more than necessary for what they do" is just crazy talk. IEA says that we are looking at about 22% globally, and that is ramping up fast. Here - http://www.iea.or...020.html
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) May 11, 2017
Perhaps in a near future someone will find out a way to turn the faux-greens' fibs into perpetual motion to supply the world's energy needs uninterruptedly forever, but meanwhile our only real hope to stop climate change is carbon-free nuclear power.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) May 11, 2017
The world can (and will) transition to renewable energy. At this point Nukes are way too expensive. Check out the 18 cents a KWh that the Brits are going to be forced to pay through higher taxes on Hinkley point if you want a reality check on that one. The cost curves on wind. solar, and batteries keep dropping like a stone. Here is one projection - http://news.stanf...611.html
greenonions1
not rated yet May 11, 2017
a
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) May 11, 2017
"If wind and sun are free, why do Denmark and Germany have the highest electricity prices in Europe?!"
https://pbs.twimg...LfzK.jpg
"Germans May Face Higher Power Costs on Exit From Nuclear Energy" - May 8, 2017
https://www.bloom...r-energy
"The Illusion of "Cheap" Renewables" - May 8, 2017
https://green-wat...293c4b88
"Because wind and solar power generation is random and intermittent, it must be backed up by reliable coal or gas power plants that actually do 80% of the work. So we must build both renewable systems and fossil fuel systems."
https://www.cfact...lessing/
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) May 12, 2017
If wind and sun are free, why do Denmark and Germany have the highest electricity prices in Europe?

Willie knows the answer to this question - as it has been addressed many times. The reason is the high taxes on their electricity. Germany and Denmark were early adopters of renewables - and began installing large quantities - when prices were much higher. We all benefit from their willingness to blaze the trail - and set the scene for today's world - in which renewables are the cheapest option.
https://qz.com/87...or-2017/
Willie - graph 1 on this report shows the cost curve on wind energy over the past 6 years. Can you show us a graph on the cost of energy from nukes please????? http://www.aweabl...-future/
Dingbone
May 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) May 12, 2017
Trillions of euros resulted in a bunch of installed gigawatts of intermittent/unreliable energy.
But an installed-gigawatt of intermittent energy requires a gigawatt of reliable energy from fossil fuel power plants to keep lights on when sun is not shining or wind is not blowing because batteries are prohibitively expensive.
The result is ever clear, no meaningful CO2 reduction even after trillions of euros wasted.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) May 12, 2017
If renewables are so great why is Germany building more coal plants?
If wind/solar/wave/tidal are so great why is Greenpeace still using marine diesel to propel their ships and motorboats across the oceans?
The answer is simple: renewables are mystical/ideological placebos; they have low energy density and are intermittent, and are not workable in small-scale, but even so the eco-nuts and faux-greens want to impose globally their "100% renewable" dogma at cost of quadrillions of dollars and ruination of natural habitats.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) May 12, 2017
Willie, the nuke industry is dying in the United States, and will die elsewhere, too.

Your posts do you no good beyond your personal feelings.
WillieWard
4.2 / 5 (5) May 12, 2017
Who but george kamburoff takes george kamburoff seriously?

Nobody here.

Nobody out there, which is why he spends all his time here (wasting ours).


TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2017
Theyre so pretty. Reminds me of this
http://canaranews...-opposed

-only, you know, prettier.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 12, 2017
Germany is actually closing coal plants - and will probably never build another one. Another lie from the anti progress movement. https://www.bloom...dwindles
https://energytra...l-plant/

If renewables were as awful as Willie keeps screaming - wonder why the nuclear capitol of the world is getting ready to build out 17 Gigawatts of the stuff...https://cleantech...-energy/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) May 12, 2017
Dingbone
In general the investments into renewables aren't advantageous at all
Yes they are. Research the cost curve on wind and solar for the past 50 years. The whole world is benefiting from the investments that have happened - often by governments. Funny how it is called socialism when it refers to renewables - but state investments in fossil fuels does not get this label - https://energy.go...e-gas-rd
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) May 12, 2017
"Datteln 4 Coal-fired Power Plant, Germany"
http://www.power-...r-plant/
Germany:gigawatts of coal planned - April 2017
http://mobile.reu...5N1H85ES
https://pbs.twimg...QnrL.jpg
Germany is actually closing coal plants - and will probably never build another one. Another lie from the anti progress movement.
I thought gskam was the only sociopath pathological liar here.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (6) May 12, 2017
If renewables were as awful ... wonder why the nuclear capitol of the world is getting ready to build out 17 Gigawatts of the stuff
Because Macron, like gskam and other faux-greens, is a psychopath, a kind of people that believe in their own lies, and want a world 100% powered by unicorn fart energy.
"Top Psychiatrist Says French President Macron is a "Dangerous Psychopath""
https://www.infow...chopath/
http://www.indepe...531.html
https://www.lgbtq...chopath/

greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 12, 2017
Willie
I thought gskam was the only sociopath pathological liar here
My view is that description fits you to a tee. Let's look at your links http://mobile.reu...5N1H85ES Out of 55 units on the books - 2 are coal. One has no date for completion - and the other has 2022 at the earliest. Now read the link I gave you - and look for sentences like this 'In combination with the remaining eight nuclear reactors to be shut down by 2022, the net volume of closures (minus new plants, none of which are coal-fired aside from Datteln IV) shown below means that wholesale power prices could remain stable." The FACTS support my assertion - that Germany is in the process of closing it's coal plants - not building more.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 12, 2017
Willie
Because Macron,
Oh - you did not realize that Macron is not the President yet. So your answer to showing you that France has just gotten final approval for 17 GW of renewable energy - is to childishly attack the not yet president - who of course is not responsible for this development. France has a plan on the books now to have 74 GW of renewables within 6 years. It is just stupid to try to blame Macron - for the inevitable happening - based on cost.
Edenlegaia
3 / 5 (2) May 13, 2017
Though i would agree about Macron seemingly being one of the worst kind of person on the surface of our world, it still shows how much situation can be critical about aging nuclear reactors. They made sure France could have energy within "reasonnable" range of price, and the necessary amount of power to continue to develop, but having other sources of energy is still better....and well, "green people" and the such would raid and destroy any attempt to build coal plants.
Dingbone
May 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 13, 2017
Edenlegaia - what do you mean by 'green people?' Don't you think it is a good idea to adopt newer better technologies as they develop? Coal is a dirty, dangerous, fuel. Renewables offer us the option of cheaper, cleaner, safer, home grown energy sources. It seems that when throwing around disparaging terms such as 'greenies' (Willie et al use this kind of language all the time) - people are wanting to hold back the tide of progress - for some ideological insecurity or something.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) May 13, 2017
the production of energy by "renewables" must be subsidized with fossil fuels - not vice-versa. In brief: the "renewables" are for people, who like an ideology, but they don't like the math
Total gobbledygook Dingbone. All energy sources require energy. Oil wells don't drill themselves. There are a number of relevant factors when looking at best energy source. EROI; pollution (including green house gases); cost of energy; source of energy; etc. Renewables offer us cheaper, cleaner, safer, and home grown energy.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) May 13, 2017
Except that the fossil fuel share remains the same as it was before fifty years and its net consumption raised exponentially.
The percentage point is technically accurate, but the 'exponentially' point is total rubbish. If you look at this graph - you will see that the curves are pretty linear - https://en.wikipe...2016.gif You will also notice that coal is starting to drop - and renewables are angling up. We have never been at a moment in time where renewables were as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels. We are there now - and the costs will keep falling. We have never had access to affordable electric cars. That moment is almost here. So the future is not the same as the past - as much as you may want it to be. Yes - I am ideological. I want a safer, cleaner, better world. Fossil fuel advocates don't seem to know what is happening in Beijing, Mumbai, Nigeria, tar sands etc.
Dingbone
May 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
May 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
2.6 / 5 (5) May 13, 2017
Not in wider scope
But you said over the past 50 years, and I showed you a graph covering the past 50 years. You are sloppy with your facts. energy consumption is not raising exponentially as you assert.
alternative sources like the overunity and cold fusion
And you guys accuse the advocated of renewables of believing in unicorn farts........
Dingbone
May 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) May 13, 2017
The globalist reductionist society is insensitive to the noise and details
Wow - you seem to speak in gibberish. Renewables are what they are. The data is available. Countries across the world are turning to renewables - and they are working. Germany, Denmark, Portugal, Scotalnd etc. etc. are living proof.
like the global share of renewables to the total energy production
It is early days. When the first oil wells were being drilled - the same would be said of oil. Give it time - and it is happening faster than many experts such as the IEA ever predicted.
and yet nobody cares about it.
Well someone must care about it - if they have developed it. And you care about it - so go for it - make yourself famous, and become a billionaire. What is stopping you?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 13, 2017
Coal is a dirty, dangerous, fuel. Renewables offer us the option of cheaper, cleaner, safer, home grown energy sources.
It is a complete nonsense to claim intermittent renewables are cheaper and cleaner even they having strong dependence on fossil fuels to mine, manufacture, transport and to keep lights on when sun is not shining or wind is not blowing.
In the end, intermittent renewables are neither cheap nor clean nor ecologically friendly, they are just expensive placebos backed up by fossil fuels to satisfy big hordes of eco-hypocrites and pseudo-environmentalists with serious problems of cognitive dissonance that do not understand math and economy and hate science.
Dingbone
May 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
May 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 13, 2017
With the same "logic" the governments shouldn't invest into research of solar cells,
I have never said that we should not invest in the research of other energy sources. I think we should. We invested in research of fossil fuels - and they have served us well. The difference between renewables and cold fusion - is that renewables work. If you believe so strongly in cold fusion - then go make it work. Go prove your case. Go make yourself famous, and a billionaire. We are currently researching alternatives such as LENR etc. - and so far they don't work. You believe in them so strongly - put your money where your mouth is - and get rich in the process.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) May 13, 2017
Dingbone - from your own link
Renewable energy requires infrastructures built with metals whose extraction requires more and more energy. More mining is unavoidable, but increased recycling, substitution and careful design of new high-tech devices will help meet the growing demand.
Thanks for making the case.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 13, 2017
Willie
It is a complete nonsense to claim intermittent renewables are cheaper and cleaner
Never one to let facts get in the way of your propaganda are you Willie? Mean time in the real world -
Renewables, meaning large-scale wind in Sweden, on the other hand, are cheaper and cheaper to commission and to run. This together with low wholesale prices will make it less likely that new nuclear power plants will replace the remaining ones when they are phased out due to old age
From - https://cleantech...reuters/
Dingbone
May 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 13, 2017
Yes and destroy the life environment without actually decreasing the fossil fuel share.
No - to decrease our destruction of the environment - by transitioning to a renewable energy system. The fact that renewables are only a small percentage of electricity currently - does not mean it will always be that way. One example of France - just approved for 17 GW of renewable energy - and a plan to increase that to 75 GW in the next 6 years. Britain will be coal free by 2025 - that is only 8 years away. Every watt generated by renewables - is one that does not have to be generated by fossil fuels. Why do you and Willie feel the need to lie? What is the motivation you both have to keep repeating lies?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 13, 2017
"The net carbon footprint is worthless. The CO2 reduction achieved by wind turbines is so insignificant that one large windfarm saves considerably less in a year than is given off over the same period by a single jumbo jet flying daily between Britain and America."
"The construction of the turbines generates enormous CO2 emissions as a result of the mining and smelting of the metals used, the carbon-intensive cement needed for their huge concrete foundations, the building of miles of road often needed to move them to the site, and the releasing of immense quantities of CO2 locked up in the peat bogs where many turbines are built."
http://ussanews.c...ge-flop/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 13, 2017
Willie
The net carbon footprint is worthless. The CO2 reduction achieved by wind turbines is so insignificant that one large windfarm saves considerably less in a year than is given off over the same period by a single jumbo jet flying daily between Britain and America.
So what? One 2 MW wind turbine will save around !,880 tonnes of C02 per year. http://www.pfr.co...Dioxide/ Yes - Jumbo jets create a shit load of C02. So does a car. That does not negate the C02 savings of the wind farm - and then of course you have the heavy pollutants from coal - that are causing Beijing type smog problems. So just because transportation creates a shit load of pollution - means we should not try to clean up our act?? Renewable energy, electric cars, rail travel - that is the long term goal. Future generations will see idiots who want to make the good - the enemy of the perfect - as ignorant jerks.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 13, 2017
There is no choice between intermittent renewables and fossil fuels, for each installed-gigawatt of intermittent energy, it is needed a gigawatt from fossil fuel power plants, and, due to low capacity factor, the fossil plants supply over 70%, and during winter up 95%.
Between bird-choppers and nothing, nothing is a better choice because it is for free with no subsidies and does not destroy natural habitats.
The only realistic choice to replace fossil fuels is carbon-free nuclear power.
kochevnik
not rated yet May 13, 2017
WIndmills are nice, but obsoleted by dark matter generators
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 13, 2017
There is no choice between intermittent renewables and fossil fuels, for each installed-gigawatt of intermittent energy, it is needed a gigawatt from fossil fuel power plants
Wow Willie - wonder how all these places ran on 100% renewables - https://qz.com/57...e-power/
It is possible to run the world on 100% renewables. It may take us 100 years to get there - but every Kwh generated on renewables - is one less on fossil fuels - http://news.stanf...611.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) May 14, 2017
Wow Willie - wonder how all these places ran on 100% renewables - https://qz.com/57...e-power/
It is possible to run the world on 100% renewables
Possible but is it affordable? Those places are not concerned with making a profit or reducing their deficit.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) May 14, 2017
"100% renewables" is only possible with hydro, geothermal and biomass. In any context, wind and solar are just intermittent placebos.
Hydro and geothermal have geographical limitations, (droughts), and biomass is worse than coal in terms of CO2 emissions. Hydro dams cause huge ecological impacts and emit methane, and geothermal exposes workers to radiation.
"Why do the sort of people who exclude nuclear energy for its radiation embrace geothermal?"
https://pbs.twimg...-t79.jpg
http://www.unscea...016.html
"By far the largest collective dose to workers per unit of electricity generated was found in the solar power cycle, followed by the wind power cycle. The reason for this is that these technologies require large amounts of rare earth metals, and the mining of low-grade ore exposes workers to natural radionuclides during mining."
http://www.unscea...4696.pdf
http://mzconsulti...m/?p=846
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2017
Possible but is it affordable?
No reason to think it is not affordable. Renewables are as cheap or cheaper than other fuel sources - and the cost keeps falling. https://www.bloom...han-wind
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2017
Willie
100% renewables" is only possible with hydro, geothermal and biomass.
Just keep moving the goal posts. Before you said -
for each installed-gigawatt of intermittent energy, it is needed a gigawatt from fossil fuel power plants,
See how you lie?
Hydro, geothermal, and biomass are renewables - http://www.treia....defined/
kochevnik
not rated yet May 14, 2017
Dark matter generators only 10% cost of grid power or tilted windmills
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2017
Hydro, geothermal, and biomass are renewables - http://www.treia....defined/
In any context, wind and solar are just intermittent placebos.
Hydro and geothermal have geographical limitations, (droughts), and biomass is worse than coal in terms of CO2 emissions. Hydro dams cause huge ecological impacts and emit methane, and geothermal exposes workers to radiation.
"Bioenergy increases emissions in Europe"
http://energypost...-europe/
"The flawed thinking at the heart of the renewable energy swindle"
https://blogs.spe...swindle/
"Europe's 'renewable' energy plan is actually destroying US forests"
http://uk.busines...-2015-12
https://notalotof...-of-gas/

WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2017
No reason to think it is not affordable. Renewables are as cheap or cheaper than other fuel sources - and the cost keeps falling.
Except it is helping in nothing to curb CO2 emissions even after trillions of dollars spent and with all political/ideological/mass media incentives (propagandism and lies).
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) May 15, 2017
Dark matter generators only 10% cost of grid power or tilted windmills

Suuuure. Funnily enough there's not a single working prototype (not even a cogent description of how they're supposed to work).
If cold fusion was crazy then 'dark matter generators' are so insane they're not even on the same scale.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) May 15, 2017
funnily enough
"Dr. Randy Booker, physics professor and former Physics Department Chairman at University of North Carolina-Ashville said, "The power was measured using two optical power measurements involving three sophisticated spectrometers calibrated against a National Institute of Science and Technology traceable standard and two thermal methods involving a commercial calorimeter and the rate of the rise of the water coolant temperature of the SunCell®. All four methodologies cross-confirmed the production of megawatt scale power that was continuous in the case of the SunCell® with spectacular commercial potential. Moreover, the unique and characteristic spectrum from the optical tests of essentially purely high energy light emission over a predicted range confirms the hydrino reaction as the source of the power.""

- You won't be too upset (again) when you're proven wrong (again) will you?

But then maybe it was thermite or firecrackers or something.
Dingbone
May 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2017
Willie
Except it is helping in nothing to curb CO2 emissions
More lies Willie. Wind power avoided about 637 million tonnes of C02 in 2016 - http://www.gwec.n...numbers/ More and more being installed every year - so sooner or later we will have a carbon free energy sector.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2017
IMO it would be interesting to calculate the price of concrete, copper, neodymium, aluminum and steel required for production, installation and recycling of these wind plants
What's stopping you from running such an analysis? Do we do the same thing when we decide to build nuclear power plants, or coal plants, or cars, or cell phones etc.? As part of your calculation - include the cost of disposal of nuclear waste, and the medical cost of all the lung disease around the world from burning coal and oil etc. Life is more complex than you know.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) May 16, 2017
Eco-nuts and faux-greens are ever claiming that intermittent renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels and are avoiding millions of tonnes of CO2 at a tiny cost of trillions of dollars(money from taxpayers).
It would be interesting a peer-reviewed study with real data showing us: the total of CO2 avoided per trillions of dollars invested in renewables placebos.
"REVEALED: German emissions increases…due to renewables"
https://green-wat...c336d393
greenonions1
not rated yet May 16, 2017
the total of CO2 avoided per trillions of dollars invested in renewables placebos.
Why don't you do that study Willie? You can include data on fossil fuels, and also on nukes. Think about this one - after we have transitioned to renewables - all the investments that have been made to date - will be divided by trillions and trillions of Kwh of electricity - because it will be for ever. Fossil fuels will look really ugly based on that analysis. The Brits will be paying 18 cents Kwh for the next 50 years - thanks to folks like you Willie....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 16, 2017
Ecological impacts of 100% renewables are insane.
"New paper finds land use will be a barrier to high solar energy penetrations, esp. in Europe."
https://www.resea...cenarios
"Environmentalists admit you shouldn't believe what they say — but they want your money anyway"
http://business.f...y-anyway
greenonions1
not rated yet May 16, 2017
Ecological impacts of 100% renewables are insane.

No they are not. - https://www.resea...d_States
Your study is looking at 100% solar. No one is proposing such a thing. We have wind (off shore and on shore), wave, ocean, hydro, geothermal, biomass. There are dozens of studies out there showing that 100% renewables is totally viable. Just watch as it happens.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 17, 2017
"Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems"
http://www.scienc...17304495
"Critique of 100% WWS Plan"
http://www.timoth...lan.html
"If you believe 100% renewable energy is possible, disconnect from the grid, install solar PV, buy loads of storage batteries."
"The dream of 100% renewables assessed by Heard et al"
http://euanmearns...d-et-al/
Excluding hydro and geothermal that have geographical limitations, renewables are just a big panacea of intermittent placebos.
greenonions1
not rated yet May 17, 2017
Willie - your study is rubbish - https://energytra...ng-them/
But so what? Just watch the situation unfold - as it currently is. I believe that you are the one on the wrong side of history - but heh - maybe your are right - and time will tell. What I think is important to stress - is that Hinkley Point is going to be screwing the British tax payer for 18 cents a Kwh - and the costs on wind/solar/storage continue their march downwards. See you in 50 years.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 17, 2017
...and the costs on wind/solar/storage continue their march downwards...
"100% renewables" cultists are becoming the worst example of mythomaniacs completely dishonest and divorced from reality.
First, they say: it is only 2¢/kWh, almost for free; now they say: just wait more 50 years, and continue investing quadrillions of dollars in renewable placebos.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) May 17, 2017
First, they say: it is only 2¢/kWh, almost for free; now they say: just wait more 50 years,
Both statements can be true. The 50 year comment was in regard to the discussion about becoming 100% renewable. Yes there are wind tenders coming in at around 2 - 3 cents per Kwh. - https://cleantech...us30mwh/

How much was Hinkley Point again? 18 cents - inflation adjusted up over the next 50 years? Poor tax payers. Who is a mythomaniac?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 19, 2017
Energiewende is an economic, financial, ecological, social and climatological disaster, says co-founder of Green Party
http://bazonline....21856097
https://translate...21856097
Europe demonstrates that solar and wind power are extremely expensive and useless most of the time.
"Europe Has Little Output to Show for Its Wind and Solar Investments"
http://institutef...stments/
"UN looks to protect birds from green energy threats"
"The global boom in renewable energy is posing new threats to birds say experts." - May 19, 2017
"Shutting down wind farms on demand is one of the methods being tested to protect these birds from collisions."
http://www.bbc.co...39954427
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 19, 2017
"Wind is an irrelevance to the energy and climate debate"
"Even after 30 years of huge subsidies, it provides about zero energy"
http://www.ration...-energy/
Excluding hydro(methane emitter), geothermal(natural radioisotopes) and biomass(CO2 emitter), intermittent renewables are just a waste of taxpayers' money.
greenonions1
not rated yet May 19, 2017
Wind energy supplied 4.7 percent of the total electricity generated in the U.S. in 2015, enough electricity to supply the equivalent of all electricity demand in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
http://www.awea.o...ber=8463
We are still in very early days. Willie thinks that the past must represent the future. Willie is wrong. Rome was not built in a day - but the things are moving along very smoothly. Slower than many of us would like - but the massive incumbent industries - that gobble up billions of dollars in government hand outs - will not let go the reigns without a fight. https://safeenerg...billion/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 20, 2017
Official data: 1.78% even after billions of dollars(taxpayer's money) wasted in bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers.
For each installed-gigawatt: a gigawatt as backup from coal and/or natural gas/fracking.
https://flowchart...ates.png
https://flowchart...ergy.pdf
Rome was not built in a day
Rome was famous for politics, slavery/poverty and corruption. Renewables are on the same track. And then the Empire fell.
greenonions1
not rated yet May 20, 2017
For each installed-gigawatt: a gigawatt as backup from coal and/or natural gas/fracking.
Just keep repeating a lie Willie - do you think it becomes the truth? Plenty of countries are well on the road to transitioning to renewable energy. This includes wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, wave, bio fuels etc. Check out Sweden, Norway, Costa Rica, Denmark, etc. etc. etc.
Rome was famous for politics, slavery/poverty and corruption.
It is just a saying - meaning don't expect to see the fossil fuel industry shut down tmrw - but the process is well under way.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 20, 2017
Check out Sweden, Norway, Costa Rica, Denmark, etc. etc. etc.
All countries close to 100% renewable have hydropower and/or geothermal that have geographical limitations. Biofuels are worse than coal in terms of CO2 emissions already demonstrated by real data.
By the way, if wind and solar are so great, why aren't they used to recharge batteries of electric cars?
https://uploads.d...f818.jpg

greenonions1
not rated yet May 20, 2017
By the way, if wind and solar are so great, why aren't they used to recharge batteries of electric cars?
They are.

http://cleanfuelc...ehicles/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 20, 2017
By the way, if wind and solar are so great, why aren't they used to recharge batteries of electric cars?
They are.

http://cleanfuelc...ehicles/
I bet it is connected to fossil-fueled grid, like gskam's home.
greenonions1
not rated yet May 20, 2017
I bet it is connected to fossil-fueled grid, like gskam's home.
May be. So what? If it is charging the electric batteries using the sun - it is displacing fossil fuels - and also proving that your previous statement was fake news. Let me remind you -
By the way, if wind and solar are so great, why aren't they used to recharge batteries of electric cars?
But they are being used to recharge batteries. Every year we move forward - more and more fossils will be displaced - until one day they will be all displaced - and we will be running on renewables. Don't it break your heart?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 21, 2017
..it is displacing fossil fuels..
No, it's not. It is replacing fossil fuels nowhere, not in Germany, not in California, not in Vermont, and nowhere.
..more and more fossils will be displaced...we will be running on renewables..
Maybe in fairyland, or in lalaland, they are running 100% on renewable unicorn energy; but in the real world, it's failing miserably to curb CO2 emissions even after trillions of dollars spent, intermittent renewables are the scam of the century, an expensive ecological disaster.
greenonions1
not rated yet May 21, 2017
No, it's not. It is replacing fossil fuels nowhere,
Again - if you tell a lie over and over - it does not become the truth Willie One example - https://en.wikipe...ated.PNG
Nice quote here showing you up again -
We have solar and wind displacing traditional fossil fuels. We'll start seeing these days more regularly, especially in June and July when it's sunny.
From - https://www.bloom...volution
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 21, 2017
We have solar and wind displacing traditional fossil fuels.
Your article is a lie, most of coal energy was replaced by natural gas, biomass(worse than coal in terms of CO2 emissions) and nuclear power(the only really low-carbon energy in the mix).
There is only a tiny island (Ta'u) with 600 residents that are powered by wind/solar and batteries, but no one tells the real costs and maintenance, and they still use fossil-powered vehicles.
In other places, intermittent renewables are an expensive fiasco.
"100% renewables fail. This small island of El Hierro has been attempting to power itself with wind, solar, and pumped hydro for 3 years, but the diesel back is still the mainstay electricity generators."
http://euanmearns...-update/
https://www.boe.e...013-9944
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
An ecological disaster, it not only kill birds but also induces death of whales.
"Three dead minke whales found dead on Suffolk coast sparking fears giant sea beasts were killed by wind farms"
https://www.thesu...d-farms/
greenonions1
not rated yet May 21, 2017
Your article is a lie
No it is not Willie.
A quarter of Britain's power is now coming from wind, wave and tidal power and other renewable energy sources
from - https://www.thegu...-in-2015 25% is a lot more than nothing - which is your perpetual claim. Rome was not built in a day - but things are rocking along - despite the liars attempts to spread disinformation.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
Without hydro and biomass(worse than coal), wind and solar are just economically/environmentally costly placebos backed by fossil fuels to hide intermittencies.
Simple: wind+solar+batteries do not work in small-scale in an economical way, worse yet globally. Rome was not built in a day, but fell as fast as Germany Energiewende is falling.
greenonions1
not rated yet May 21, 2017
Without hydro and biomass(worse than coal)
Hydro and bio mass are part of the renewable basket. Neither are worse than coal.
https://www.scien...4656.htm
https://www.treeh...ted.html
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2017
"Biomass More Polluting Than Coal, New Study Finds" - Feb 2017
http://www.ecowat...699.html
"Emissions from burning wood are worse than coal, says report"
http://www.herald..._report/
"Hydroelectric dams emit a billion tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, study finds"
https://www.thegu...e-change
"Reservoirs are a major source of global greenhouse gases, scientists say"
https://www.washi...e-gases/
"Greenhouse gas emissions avoided through use of nuclear energy"
http://www.world-...ded.aspx
greenonions1
not rated yet May 22, 2017
Table 4 on this study - gives you all the information you need in terms of a full life comparison of current day coal plants - latest technology high efficiency coal plants, and biomass plants. Read it and weep Willie = https://bioenergy...4519.pdf
The real test would be comparing the emissions of a full renewable system - using wind/solar/wave/tidal/hydro/biofuels/electric cars - against today's system. No contest.
greenonions1
not rated yet May 22, 2017
Very cool quote regarding wind -
The tender results show how onshore wind is today the cheapest option for new power generation
From https://cleantech...y-spain/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2017
Not only birds and other flying living things.
"Offshore Wind Turbines Blamed For Killing Family Of Whales"
http://dailycalle...-whales/
"Three dead minke whales found dead on Suffolk coast sparking fears giant sea beasts were killed by wind farms"
https://www.thesu...d-farms/
greenonions1
not rated yet May 23, 2017
Yea - I read your article from the Sun. Maybe you don't know much about the news - and CREDIBLE sources of information. You can find a ton of links regarding the moronic rags the stupid half of Britain likes to read - http://www.lazerh...elters/# It really makes you look sad to quote such fake news. Mean time in the real world - technology marches on - https://cleantech...y-spain/
https://cleantech...-energy/
Your voice becomes more and more shrill - and you become ever more lonely Willie.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2017
Cleantechnica is not a credible source of information, they are biased antinuclear thereby pro-fossil fuels as in the real world intermittent renewables are just placebos backed up by fossil fuels to compensate intermittencies.
greenonions1
not rated yet May 23, 2017
Cleantechnica is not a credible source of information
But the Sun - and the Daily Caller are? Cleantechnica actually contains facts. Read over the article I posted - and you will see that it is both factual, and accurate.
The big point in all of this - is that you are screaming at the tide - telling it not to come in. But the tide is coming in any way. The conversion to renewable energy system is happening. It is just bizarre that you need to deny reality. I guess you are just to in love with coal plants, and sulpher dioxide.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 24, 2017
Most of news involving renewables are blatant lies (replacing coal and other fossil fuels everywhere, cheap almost for free, zero ecological impacts, fossil-free, subsidies-free, etc.)
I bet in 10 or 15 years, most of innocent governments and their people will stop believing completely in renewable panacea (specifically wind, solar, tidal, wave). Geothermal and hydropower resources are ever scarcer, land for biomass too. Just dishonest rulers will continue to push renewable placebo agenda to satisfy their vested interests mainly to help the fossil fuel industry.
Climate Change will get worse, so it will time of listening the majority of climatologists and start getting serious about development of new carbon-free nuclear power plants.
The future is carbon-free nuclear power, not intermittent placebos, eternal scams, backed up by fossil fuels.
greenonions1
not rated yet May 24, 2017
Most of news involving renewables are blatant lies
You provide no support for your lies. the articles referenced are fact based. The numbers can be checked by any one with the interest in doing so. Just saying things does not make them true.
The future is carbon-free nuclear power,
Perhaps. Based on what is happening today - I think you are wrong. Hinkley Point will cost the British tax payers double the current strike price of electricity - https://en.wikipe...onsumers
Battery plus storage can do the same thing for half that cost - http://renewecono...s-13929/ Every day we read about the next technological breakthrough - that is causing the cost of renewables to tumble. Not lies Willie - verifiable facts.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 24, 2017
"The reality has been that Ivanpah was a real disappointment in terms of its actual electrical output. It also may have caused more environmental problems than it solved."
"the facility failed to produce enough electricity to fulfill its obligations to PG&E."
"customers of PG&E pay about $200 per megawatt hour for electricity generated by Ivanpah, making it some of the nation's most expensive electricity."
"Since it opened two years ago, Ivanpah has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of birds, most which are scorched to death while flying through the super-heated air surrounding the plant. Construction of the plant also involved the attempted relocation of the local population of endangered tortoises, several of which were killed in the process."
http://energyfair...-sierra/
"Ivanpah solar plant, built to limit greenhouse gases, is burning more natural gas"
http://www.pe.com...pah.html
greenonions1
not rated yet May 24, 2017
Yes Willie - Ivanpah has not turned out well. It may even be forced to close down. Solyndra was a problem too. But you can cherry pick as much as you want - because the tide is coming in. The Israeli's are giving C.S.P. a try http://inhabitat....seholds/ - and the largest C.S.P. plant being built in Dubai. http://inhabitat....r-plant/ Perhaps Ivanpah taught us some lessons - it is early days. The French are converting over to renewables - so it looks like the tide really is coming in.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) May 24, 2017
Faux-greens are inducing the French to fight global warming by replacing reliable sources of carbon-free energy by intermittent bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers backed up by fossil fuels as Germans did and ended increasing emissions, a blatant disservice for Climate Change.
"Nuclear energy has been a threat to the oil industry for decades. Why do you think oil companies secretly funded anti-nuclear protests during the so-called "environmentalist" movement in the 1970s? They continue to invest in renewable technology not only to diversify but also because they know that intermittent renewables are create dependency on fossil fuels."
http://www.nuclea...ctitious
greenonions1
not rated yet May 24, 2017
The situation in France demonstrates that nuclear power is neither as cheap nor as reliable as its proponents claim
the French market model, based on centralized power production from a single source, is outdated. The German model, based on decentralized renewable power production, is more resilient, reliable and cheaper.
See Willie - we can play cut and paste all year long. None of that changes the reality of the shift that is happening. In 2015 - 153 GW of renewable energy was installed - http://www.telegr...solar-p/
There are currently 57 GW of nukes under construction - and who knows how many decades these will take to come on line. https://www.world...55972932 Mean time the cost of wind and solar keeps falling like a brick....

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.