Wind turbines can pick up the slack on coldest days

June 16, 2017 by Hayley Dunning
Credit: Imperial College London

Winter days are usually less windy, but a new analysis shows turbines work harder on the coldest days, when power demand is highest.

During winter in Great Britain, warmer periods are often windier, while colder periods are often calmer, due to the prevailing weather patterns. Colder periods are also when electricity demand increases.

This means that wind turbines are widely considered to be producing the least energy when demand is highest. However, the new study, published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters, shows that on the very coldest days, turbines often produce more power than the average winter day.

The team, which involved scientists from the Met Office Hadley Centre, Imperial College London and the University of Reading, found that during high demand (cold) days, capacity from turbines decreased by an average of a third.

However, during the highest five percent of energy demand days, a third had above-average wind power, due to more of these days having strong easterly winds.

The research suggests that a spread of turbines around Great Britain would make the most of the varied wind patterns associated with the coldest days – maximising power supply during high demand conditions.

Results also suggest that during high demand periods offshore wind power provides a more secure supply compared to onshore, as offshore wind is sustained at higher levels.

Hazel Thornton, of the Met Office Hadley Centre, is one of the paper's authors. She said: "The very coldest days are associated with a mix of different weather patterns, some of which produce high winds in parts of Great Britain.

"For example, very high pressure over Scandinavia and lower pressure over Southern Europe blows cold continental air from the east over Great Britain, giving high demand, but also high wind power. In contrast, winds blowing from the north, such as happened during December 2010, typically give very high demand but lower wind supply."

Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, of the University of Reading and Chair of Imperial College London's Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, is one of the paper's other authors. He said: "A system that is distributed around Great Britain is less influenced by low generation on cold, still winter days: low wind in one region tends to be compensated by elsewhere. The average drop in generation is only about a third, and is generally smaller than this on the really cold days."

Explore further: Enough wind to power global energy demand, new research says

More information: Hazel E Thornton et al. The relationship between wind power, electricity demand and winter weather patterns in Great Britain, Environmental Research Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa69c6

Related Stories

Enough wind to power global energy demand, new research says

September 9, 2012

There is enough energy available in winds to meet all of the world's demand. Atmospheric turbines that convert steadier and faster high-altitude winds into energy could generate even more power than ground- and ocean-based ...

Using fluctuating wind power

March 25, 2013

Incorporating wind power into existing power grids is challenging because fluctuating wind speed and direction means turbines generate power inconsistently. Coupled with customers' varying power demand, many wind-farm managers ...

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

Volumetric 3-D printing builds on need for speed

December 11, 2017

While additive manufacturing (AM), commonly known as 3-D printing, is enabling engineers and scientists to build parts in configurations and designs never before possible, the impact of the technology has been limited by ...

Tech titans ramp up tools to win over children

December 10, 2017

From smartphone messaging tailored for tikes to computers for classrooms, technology titans are weaving their way into childhoods to form lifelong bonds, raising hackles of advocacy groups.

62 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
2 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2017
The 21st-century economy needs cheap and plentiful power 24/7. Wind cannot deliver cheap, plentiful or 24/7.

Have you hugged a fracker today? You should.
humy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2017
Wind cannot deliver cheap, .

false; it is currently often (if not usually) cheaper than fossil fuel energy (just google the figures for yourself) and is one of the cheapest energy sources known.
As for "24/7", haven't you head of the supergrid and batteries and combining different types of renewables?
MR166
2 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2017
Humy don't you realize that wind and solar sell for less than the competition because of their unreliability? In fact sometimes wind sells for less than zero.
http://www.slate....hat.html
MR166
2 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2017
Converting wind and solar into reliable 24/7 power sources is more complicated than just storing power say for 24 hours. I would venture to make a guesstimate that one would need to be able to store at least one weeks worth of power from these sources in order to close the backup generators that support them. Also as the percentage of power supplied be solar and wind increases the problem gets worse, not better. A super grid would help but you still need to have excess unused generating capacity available to fill in the gaps. This capacity could be wind or solar if it was distributed in a wide enough area. It would all work if wind and solar become cheap enough that we could allow large portions of it to remain idle when not needed.
MR166
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2017
Now if someone develops a business that can utilize this unused solar and wind backup capacity it would have the same effect as unlimited battery backup. Say one developed aluminium smelter whose output could be increased, decreased or even shut down as conditions warrant. Then this idle generating capacity could be put to good economic use make solar and wind much more cost effective.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2017
When energy is most needed, you cannot count on 'unreliables'.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2017
wind and solar sell for less than the competition because of their unreliability
Completely false. Renewables sell for less - because they are cheap - https://www.bloom...ng-point There is clearly a lot of attempt by the anti progress lobby to 'make it not so.' They have lost - and are left yelling at the tide to go back.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2017
Renewables sell for less - because they are cheap

I call B.S. on that statement Onions. If one producer makes widgets for 10 cents and sells all he can produce for 20 cents why would another producer that figured out how to produce the same product for 2 cents sell it for less than say 19 cents. he would sell everything and make a much better profit.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2017
Onions there is one very simple way to make me change my mind. Just point me to the financials of a renewable power company that can produce power and sell it under the going wholesale rate while making a profit. Here is what I mean when I say a profit.

Be able to amortize a 3% 25 year loan for the cost of the plant
Pay for upkeep and management
Pay normal rates of real estate taxes
Pay the investors say 4% a year on their investment.
Set aside money for depreciation so that equipment can be replaced when it has reached the end of it's useful life.

All of the above must be paid for by the unsubsidized sale of electricity.

WillieWard
2.4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2017
Renewables sell for less - because they are cheap
If renewables are really cheap, why not slash the massive subsidies?
"Still not competitive: Solar PV & wind need $125 billion in subsidies this year Total: $3.2 trillion (2016-2040)"
https://www.faceb...6303968/
http://www.worlde...eo-2016/
"It's Confirmed: Without Government Subsidies, Tesla Sales Implode"
https://www.techn...implode/
"Renewables received 114x more in subsidies than nuclear in 2016, says non-partisan Congressional Budget Office."
https://pbs.twimg...gqJT.jpg
http://www.enviro...estions/

greenonions1
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2017
MR
I call B.S. on that statement Onions.
Well good deal. Why don't you show me - the current unsubsidized cost of wind and solar - and then put it along side the unsubsidized cost of nukes. I could do that for you - but you obviously have no interest in believing anything I say - and I don't care about that. So go ahead MR - do some research. I stand behind my assertion - that wind and solar are cheap.
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2017
If renewables are really cheap, why not slash the massive subsidies
Because everyone else gets subsidies. How hard is that concept to understand Willie? As you also know Willie - the subsidies in the U.S. are being phased out over the next few years. So how about you take the subsidies off Hinkley Point - and let the nuclear industry compete with wind and solar.
greenonions1
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2017
MR - do you actually read anything on energy? What credentials and special knowledge do you have - that allow you to disagree with the experts who spend their life analyzing this stuff - and have concluded -
Solar is already at least as cheap as coal in Germany, Australia, the U.S., Spain and Italy. The levelized cost of electricity from solar is set to drop another 66% by 2040. By 2021, it will be cheaper than coal in China, India, Mexico, the U.K. and Brazil as well.
Perhaps you will notice from that report (if you read it) - that world energy markets are incredibly complex - and your little supply and demand exercise is a joke. Here is the report - https://about.bne...outlook/
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2017
Onions it is disingenuous to claim that renewables that sell under the going rate are cheap. The are selling at a discount because they are undesirable and only exist due to massive government funding per KWH produced. In reality they pay people to take the stuff so that they can reap the subsidies.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2017
"Solar is already at least as cheap as coal in Germany,....."

Germany is Europe's poster child for high electric rates. Why do you think that is and could it have anything to do with solar subsidies?
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2017
Onions it is disingenuous to claim that renewables that sell under the going rate are cheap.
No it is not. When I say they are cheap - I am not referring to the spot price of electricity. Do you know what means? Not all markets use the same system as Texas. Across the board - wind and solar are coming in cheap. Why don't you do as I suggested - and research the current cost of wind and solar - vs nukes.
Solar is already at least as cheap as coal in Germany
Notice you did not quote the whole sentence -
Solar is already at least as cheap as coal in Germany, Australia, the U.S., Spain and Italy.
Whether you like it or not - renewables are cheap. But the world does not care what you or I think. It is what it is - and renewables are cheap. https://thinkprog...0c78bbbe If you care to do some reading - there are dozens more articles just like that one.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
"Solar is already at least as cheap as coal in Germany,....."
Solar is as cheap as coal but depends on coal and other fossil fuels to keep lights on when sun is not shining as well to mine, manufacture, transport and to install. It is a weird way to fight climate change by betting on cheap(heavily subsidized) placebos that have strong dependence on cheap fossil fuels.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2017
At least we got @WetWillie to stop lying about wind turbines killing birds- other than the odd sock puppet who shows up suddenly after it gets pwnt for claiming wind turbines kill birds and takes over on its first post.

Hey, it's progress. Slowly but surely. Grinds slowly but exceedingly fine.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2017
When I say they are cheap - I am not referring to the spot price of electricity.

It's also a red herring. We're fighting climate change. 'Cheap' is no longer even on the list of criteria for selecting an energy source. *IF* it's cheap: Fine. But *just* being cheap alone means nothing in today's situation.

Solar is as cheap as coal but depends on coal and other fossil fuels to keep lights on when sun is not shining as well to mine,

So? Still means burning 50% less coal. any reduction is good. And that percentage only dwindles once storage comes on line.

You're demanding a switchover that happens in a day. That just shows how completely insane your arguments are (and how much you're grasping at straws if that's the type of argument you're reduced to). Give it up. You lost 10 years ago.
EmceeSquared
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2017
Da Schneib:
At least we got @WetWillie to stop lying about wind turbines killing birds


"Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why"
https://phys.org/...ere.html
A 2009 study using US and European data on bird deaths
[...]
"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-fuelled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh."
[...] wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fuelled power plants 14.5 million.


WillieWard has been defending the grisly genocide of 47x as many birds by nukes as by wind. Since he insisted we save the birds, he must now insist we replace those nukes with windmills.

Of course, a foolish inconsistency is the small mind of trolls.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2017
Of course, a foolish inconsistency is the small mind of trolls.
:D Absolutely. Well quoted.

An alternative quote:

Teh stupid it burnz. :D
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2017
Antialias
It's also a red herring.
Well - it would be nice if policy was set based on what is best - based on multiple factors. Unfortunately here in the U.S. - we have just elected a President who does not believe in climate change - and he has surrounded himself with a cabinet of like minds. Thankfully wind and solar are falling in price - are the number one source of new power here in the U.S. - so the train is probably just going to be slowed down for a few years - but not stopped totally - because of that price factor.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2017
EmceeSquared
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2017
MR166:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bat-killings-by-wind-energy-turbines-continue/


I'll take the latest actual peer reviewed science over a year-old article in "Scientific American":
"Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why"
https://phys.org/...ere.html
"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-fuelled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh."
[...] wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fuelled power plants 14.5 million."

But since I just posted that a few posts above yours, it's pretty obvious that you'd rather take the story that confirms your bias than the actual facts.
humy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2017
Humy don't you realize that wind and solar sell for less than the competition

Really? Strange then that wind is currently one of the most cost effective sources.. Here is what the stats say;

https://en.wikipe...y_source
humy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2017
A super grid would help but you still need to have excess unused generating capacity available to fill in the gaps.

Actually, no. It has been calculated that a sufficiently wide spread supergrid + other measures will mean no "excess unused generating capacity"
humy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2017
There is no law of physics that says nor a rational reason to believe that it is forever impossible to make a renewable to be cost effective and affordable. The use of wind to grind wheat to make wheat flower (to make bread) was once widely used; was that not cost effective and affordable? Of COURSE it was cost effective and affordable else all those windmills would never been built and used; -proof that a renewable can be cost effective and affordable.
EmceeSquared
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2017
MR166:
Humy don't you realize that wind and solar sell for less than the competition because of their unreliability? In fact sometimes wind sells for less than zero.


So you see an article that even says right in its title that the reason is "wind power was so plentiful" as explanation why it's so cheap, and somehow the fact that supply can be so vast means to you it's "unreliable".

You're saying that since you sometimes have to pay for what you sometimes get as a gift, that's unreliable and so you should instead get what you always have to pay for.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2017
"Basic rule: you can't build a windmill with a windmill."
"Global steel production is dependent on coal. 70% of the steel produced today uses coal."
https://www.world...produced
For nuclear power, it is included mining activities to account bird deaths.
But for wind/solar, faux-greens do not include mining activities, do not specify that uranium is a by-product of copper mining(essential for renewables). Carbon-free nuclear power is awesomely energy dense, reliable, and require fewer mining activities per gigawatt-installed
.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2017
Who cares if wind/solar placebos are "cheap" if they require fossil fuels as backup and devour huge quantities of subsidies(taxpayers' money) and are a fiasco in terms of CO2 reduction? It cares just for two kinds of people: delusional and dishonest that has ideological/political/economical interests and no commitment to really stop Climate Change and do not care about the environment, birds and other endangered species, and natural landscapes.
"It seems that the $100 billion wind market is just too lucrative to care about a few birds."

"Solar & wind can't solve climate change so I advocate for advanced nuclear."
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2017
Basic rule: you can't build a windmill with a windmil
Sure you can - electricity is fungible - that is a basic reality of energy - and you don't even know that one.
"It seems that the $100 billion wind market is just too lucrative to care about a few birds."
Well nukes kill a lot more birds - so I guess we have to choose the best energy source - based on multiple factors. Cost is one factor. Not long ago - you conservatives were howling about all the dead senior citizens - caused by increasing energy costs. Now wind and solar are not only clean - but also cheapest - crickets chirping on that one.
EmceeSquared
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2017
WillieWard:
Who cares if wind/solar placebos are "cheap" if they require fossil fuels as backup and devour huge quantities of subsidies(taxpayers' money) and are a fiasco in terms of CO2 reduction?


The nukes fetishist troll can't understand that wind/solar replace fossil fuels even if they can't totally do so *yet*. They're such a committed troll that they can't understand that the still necessary supplements to wind/solar can be the remaining nukes. Phasing out nukes takes a long time, during which we're amortizing the egregious investment we made in them during the Cold War. They can't understand because the nukes fetish is typically a monomania, where the troll insists that *only* nukes can cure any and all problems.

"Solar & wind can't solve climate change so I advocate for advanced nuclear."


Of course the troll states it backwards: they must advocate nukes, so (in their mind) solar and wind can't solve climate change.
howhot3
4 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2017
It's foolish nor to develope solar, wind or any of the other technologies. Fossil fuels by there name won't last long anyway. Certainly not in to the future.

https://www.youtu...WQ4tMBrs
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2017
Picking up the "wind turbines kill birds" lie again? Here's the antidote: Thread where @WetWillie gets pwnt on wind power killing birds: https://phys.org/...ere.html

Fossil fuels and nukes kill hundreds to thousands of times more birds; but if you really want to make a difference adopt a street cat and keep them inside. A single cat can kill more birds over its lifetime than even the dirtiest coal plant.

If you really care about birds, and aren't just hunting for whining objections to wind power. But of course that's exactly what they're doing, and they'll never admit it. It's called "greenwashing."
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2017
It's foolish nor to develope solar, wind or any of the other technologies.
Free power from the sky.

It's raining soup; grab a bucket instead of whining. Just sayin'.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2017
We are learning to integrate renewables on to the grid. Denmark and Germany have significantly higher penetration of non hydro renewables, and 1/10th the number of outages than the U.S. Food for thought - https://www.green...-outages
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2017
Now wind and solar are not only clean - but also cheapest -
"There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy"
https://wattsupwi...-energy/
Denmark and Germany...
"So far this year the fastest growing electricity source in Germany and Denmark are combustible fuels. IEA data."
https://pbs.twimg...TWEE.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...rVlD.jpg
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2017
There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
Except there is. https://www.scien...he-world And Australia's soaring energy prices are not due to renewables
Yet everyone has missed the main cause of a doubling in SA power price rises – a doubling in gas prices.
From - https://www.thegu...to-blame
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2017
"If you think renewable is so great why won't you go offgrid?"
"The popular delusion that achieving 100% renewable energy is "feasible and cheap" is scientifically debunked. Again."
"A bitter scientific debate just erupted over the future of America's power grid"
https://www.washi...9aa48d14
"Scientists Sharply Rebut Influential Renewable-Energy Plan" - June 19, 2017
https://www.techn...ewables/
"Fisticuffs Over the Route to a Clean-Energy Future"
https://www.nytim...tml?_r=0
"Mark Jacobson aptly demonstrates that if you tell people what they want to hear, they will believe anything."

greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2017
"If you think renewable is so great why won't you go offgrid?
A lot of people are doing that Willie - http://www.huffin...152.html
But once again you demonstrate all or nothing thinking. The transition to renewables has just begun. I am not advocating going 'off grid.' I am advocating an orderly transition to a power system based on clean/cheap/abundant/home grown energy.
And yes - there is a debate about the best route to that new energy system. That is healthy - right? It seems the authors of the initial report - may have been overly rosy - and some other engineers have come along and challenged their numbers. Good deal. Let's see how it all plays out. The one thing you can't stop - is the tide coming in Willie. Clean/cheap/abundant/home grown energy - is not going to be stopped.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2017
"If you think renewable is so great why won't you go offgrid?
A lot of people are doing that Willie - http://www.huffin...152.html ...
In almost every faux-greens' statement there is a lie.
Fairy world: "More Canadians Are Living 'Off The Grid' Than You Think" "...solar power..."
Real world: "This is why solar doesn't work in Canada"
https://pbs.twimg...2o5E.jpg
howhot3
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2017
In almost every faux-greens' statement there is a lie.

Here is what is not a lie; Fossil fuels are not renewable... use them up and that's it. Additionally fossil fuels *ARE* the cause of global warming. Nuff said. Choke on the fumes of that burning carbon dump (I mean sink).
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2017
In almost every faux-greens' statement there is a lie.
When you can provide support for your assertions - they are not lies. You on the other hand - provide links to silly pictures - and cannot support your assertions with data. So it is baby steps Willie.

As of last year, Bateman said, Canada has about 2.5 gigawatts worth of installed solar energy systems, which represents about a million homes.
From - http://vancouvers...s-cloudy

Canada also has potential for wind - http://canwea.ca/...apacity/
And of course a lot of hydro - https://en.wikipe...n_Canada

Baby steps Willie.

All assertions supported with links Willie - not just silly gifs that are meaningless.
windturbines
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2017
While more wind turbines with higher energy generation capacity are being developed continuously, there should also be a consideration of risks, especially failures and accidents. We have conducted an extensive research study on wind turbine accidents around the world and also shared the data that we collected on our page, which I invite you to visit: Best Regards, Dr. Gurdal Ertek
MR166
3 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2017
Onions your statement that electric prices in Australia went up because of rising gas leaves out the most important factor in the increase. It is the fact that coal plants cannot function as a backup to wind or solar and are closing. That shifts the demand to gas which makes gas fired electric the only energy source available at times. Scarcity creates price increases.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2017
there should also be a consideration of risks, especially failures and accidents.

With more and more windfarms being built off-shore - are accidents even an issue? Even on-shore: The land wind farms are built on isn't populated. Some are built in fields and the likelyhood of a farmer being just there when a blade falls off should be next to nil.

I guess the highest risk would be a ship becoming unable to maneouver and running into an off-shore windfarm. But that's basically the only hazard (aside from service operations) I can think of.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2017
I finally agree with one of HowHot's statements, yes fossil fuels are a finite resource and we do need to develop alternate sources of electricity. I just disagree with the time frame of development. When low cost energy storage becomes available and renewables truly can replace fossil I will be a very happy camper.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2017
Anti I agree that off shore wind is more viable than on shore. One of my biggest concerns is the low frequency pressure pulses that surround the farms. People complain of damage to livestock and human health problems. Who knows the real truth since people claim to be allergic to WiFi also.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2017
One of my biggest concerns is the low frequency pressure pulses that surround the farms.

Funnily that has been debunked.
More and more wind farms are being built and the number of complaints (also about an issues of 'intermittent shadows') has dropped to near zero.

A study found (from wikipedia):
" the distribution of recorded events correlates with media coverage of wind farm syndrome itself, and not with the presence or absence of wind farms"
Also some fossil fuel company was astroturfing a group to push 'windfarm syndrome' in the media.

Yes: they do emit infrasound
Yes: people can get annoyed by sound

But 'being annoyed' hasn't stopped highways or airports from operating, either. "Wind turbine syndrome" is just so much of a red herring.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2017
Funnily that has been debunked.
When did that ever stop MR from repeating misinformation? We have lots of wind farms in our state - and people are getting along with them just fine. You are right - most our out in the middle of fields - and farmers are very happy to generate extra revenue - as the fields can still be used for grazing - it is a win wiin. We have several colonies of migratory bats - and bat mortality is a problem - but they are working on that issue - in areas where it is a concern.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2017
Fossil fuels are not renewable... Additionally fossil fuels *ARE* the cause of global warming.
But intermittent renewables have strong dependence on fossil fuels in all their processes(mining, manufacturing, transporting, installing) and to keep lights on when wind is not blowing or sun is not shining or during prolonged droughts.
Additionally the replacements of reliable sources of carbon-free nuclear energy by intermittent renewables are also the cause of global warming.
In practice, wind and solar are useless in the fight against global warming, just a huge waste of trillions of dollars for almost nothing in terms of CO2 reduction, most of reductions were mainly due to replacement of coal by natural gas/fracking.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2017
In practice, wind and solar are useless in the fight against global warming, just a huge waste of trillions of dollars for almost nothing in terms of CO2 reduction, most of reductions were mainly due to replacement of coal by natural gas/fracking.
And not one bit of support for such an outrageous statement. Wind and solar are of course not useless - as can be seen by their deployment all over the world. Anyone who believes that shutting down coal plants does not reduce C02 - knows nothing. And now - even small scale solar plants in Australia are coming in at around $1.00 Aus. per watt. (u.s. 75 cents per watt.) How long can these falling prices continue to fall? - http://renewecono...t-65190/
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2017
"In practice, wind and solar are useless in the fight against global warming, just a huge waste of trillions of dollars for almost nothing in terms of CO2 reduction, most of reductions were mainly due to replacement of coal by natural gas/fracking."

That is a real shame. They are wasting a valuable fuel like natural gas when less expensive, less valuable and more plentiful coal works perfectly well.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2017
MR166:
They are wasting a valuable fuel like natural gas when less expensive, less valuable and more plentiful coal works perfectly well.


Of course coal works perfectly badly. It's dangerous to mine, causing serious injuries, death and disease. Mines nowadays remove entire mountaintops and fill their streams with toxic waste, ruining their ecosystems. Burning it spreads mercury and radioactive waste along with carcinogenic and otherwise toxic particulates. And of course worst of all it's pushed the Greenhouse into beginning to destroy our civilization.

But all that is well known. You don't need me to tell you that, nor does any other honest reader. And so telling you that overwhelming truth won't stop you from continuing to lie.

Because you are a troll. You are fact proof.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2017
Wind and solar are of course not useless...
"As promising as renewables may seem, the harsh reality is that gas-backed wind and solar are only marginally effective as an electrical power source in the fight against global warming."
https://www.5-min...m/852-2/
Carbon-free nuclear power is worth the price.
"Did you know that emissions free air provided by nuclear energy can be valued at BILLIONS of dollars in savings? $33.4 billion to be exact."
https://pbs.twimg...R03K.jpg
"Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants."
"While nuclear waste is contained in heavy drums and regularly monitored, solar waste outside of Europe today ends up in the larger global stream of electronic waste."
http://www.enviro...e-crisis
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2017
Mean time Willie -
The total world energy usage (coal+oil+hydroelectric+nuclear+renewable) in 2015 was 13,000 Million Ton Oil Equivalent (13,000 MTOE) - see World Energy Consumption & Stats. This translates to 17.3 Terawatts continuous power during the year.

Now, if we cover an area of the Earth 335 kilometers by 335 kilometers with solar panels, even with moderate efficiencies achievable easily today, it will provide more than 17,4 TW power. This area is 43,000 square miles. The Great Saharan Desert in Africa is 3.6 million square miles
So don't worry your little head - wind and solar are now the cheapest - and the transition is going to move to a new phase. You keep digging up your garbage quotes - it does not make the true. From - https://www.forbe...d885d440
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2017
Eco-nuts do not differentiate terawatt-installed from terawatt produced, do not take into account intermittencies, mining, manufacturing, transporting, installing, cabling, recycling, all carried by fossil-fueled machines, in the end "100% renewables" = "100% fossil fuels", also do not take into account disruption of wildlife habitats("desert land is special, and must also be protected"), massacre of millions of birds and other endangered species, ruination of natural landscapes to make room for renewable placebos backed up by fossil fuels.
EmceeSquared
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2017
WillieWard:
"Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants."


That quote from environmentalprogress.org is from a lying study produced by a nuke troll propaganda mill.

The study counts all the material in solar panels as waste, but for nuclear only the spent fuel assemblies. It doesn't count as waste the nuclear plant getting decommissioned, the waste from the fuel refining or delivery phases, its operational security, or the spent fuel itself (highly radioactive for millennia). It doesn't count the waste from building the plant or, crucially, from decommissioning the plant - which can take generations, digging out radioactive and otherwise extremely toxic rubble and landfill.

It's just another lie. The org publishing it is run by a paid leader of the nuke industry campaign to ignore nuke pollution.

No wonder WillieWard the nuke fetishist troll pushes it here. They are an outlet for this nuke propaganda, likely paid.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2017
Eco-nuts do not differentiate terawatt-installed from terawatt produced
Yes we do. We understand capacity factor very well. We also understand that when a wind company gives a per MWh price for their power - it is not talking about installed capacity - but power actually produced and put on the grid. Wind and solar are now the cheapest option - which is why they are the number one new energy installed in many countries around the world.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2017
Wind/solar farms are invading untouched wildlife habitats, causing an unprecedented ecological disaster. And worse, for almost nothing in terms CO2 reduction even after trillions of dollars spent.
"It's worse than we thought: Wind turbines might reduce some migratory bat populations by 90%..."
"Green Killing Machines: Germany's Coalition Government Makes Killing Wildlife Easy"
https://www.thegw...ls-easy/
https://pbs.twimg...-MEU.jpg
"Block Island Wind Farm May Have Killed Young Humpback Whale"
"Noise from the turbine allegedly hampers the sonar that whales use to navigate and communicate."
http://www.thenew...le/12245
http://dailycalle...g-whale/

MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2017
"We understand capacity factor very well. "

Do you really?

https://techxplor...rgy.html
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
Do you really?
Yes. And what does your article have to do with wind turbines? Do you ever stop trolling?

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.