Danny,
My reference to production, C le Pair, p6.
Wind turbines are large structures that require energy
for their components, construction and foundation and
installation A firm doing this work figured it out. It boils
down to an amount of energy equal to the assumed
production of the wind turbine during a period of 1 1/2 yrs..
This energy investment has to be ‘written off’ during
the lifetime of the installation. Wind supporters claim
25 yrs but it is less says P le C, 12 -15 yrs
Michael what appears to you as high weeds appears to clear thinkers as as an ankle height lawn. In other words you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him think.
Pat Michaels on the coming climate change ‘conference’ being held by Pope Francis.
Clarification 6th line, 1 1/2 is ‘one and one half.’
Gary, great article, I’ve Facebooked it.
Here is something that appears unconnected, but possibly is. When you poll Republicans on Obamacare they don’t realize that more people are covered now than were before. It seems to be part of an Obamacare failure meme they get taught by their media and politicians. If they are so wrong about this, could not the same counterfactual beliefs apply to climate change which is also pushed by the Republican politicians and right-wing media? The bottom-line quote from this is “That would mean these self-identified Republicans aren’t denying reality so much as refusing to even think about it.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/27/obamacare-poll-repeal_n_7153216.html
Beth,
Thank you. Will take a look at the link.
True on both counts ie “missed that” and what you said.
not a Gillard fan but did notice misogyny and false misogyny when they occurred.
Rudd Istvan.\,
The 50% refers to effectiveness, not capacity factor. “Effectiveness here means % reduction in CO2 emissions divided by % electricity supplied by wind turbines. “
Point taken. Writing is not my strong suit. Perhaps go straight to the submission, scan it to see if you think it may be of interest, including the appendices, then read it you are interested. I had some help with structuring and writing it. the submission is No. 259 here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions (select the last page, choose display 500, scroll down to No. 259 and click on (PDF 664 KB)).
This problem with CO2 abatement cost looks like an example of the economic concept of diminishing returns. I think there might be another similar problem with wind turbines that needs to be studied and given a catchy name. When just starting out, wind farms are new, shiny and flashy. It’s probably the easiest way to start adding CO2 free electric capacity. But there have been no plans made for how to deal with intermitency at high percentages. There needs to be some smart, high sounding term for this political short sightedness.
http://www.vestas.com/Files/Filer/EN/Brochures/Vestas_V_90-3MW-11-2009-EN.pdf
Go to page 14
“TECHNICAL data for V90-3.0 Mw”
Divide the numbers by 3 and you have the amount per nameplate MW (nameplate MW is about 4 times actual production).
The usual assumption is about 200-300 kg rare earths and 100 tons of stainless steel per nameplate MW. This is 400 tons steel and 800-1200 kg rare earths per actual MW.
,
Peter:
I appreciate your willingness to accept feedback. I certainly do not mean to be rude or patronizing in any way.
I think everyone, me especially, would benefit from a short paragraph summary of your main thesis.
CO2 savings from 1 KWh of wind generated electricity is lower than might be expected because… As you increase the % of KWhs derived from wind, the CO2 savings per KWh decline faster because…
It seems there’s something called Merit Order that goes something like this: Resources with the least marginal costs are brought online first as demand grows during the day. A utility’s own renewables have the lowest marginal cost little. They burn no fuel. The last things brought online cost the most per kilowatt hour. The vulnerability is when it’s not windy and not sunny. The most expensive energy obtained from the spot market then replaces what was the least expensive energy that’s not there. An alternative to this is to bring renewables online last if they are available or buy from the spot market. With small private renewables, to the utility it’s likely that supply is not the lowest cost because that market is so distorted by government. An alternative for that is to let small private renewables only sell to the spot market, when demand and prices are high. The utility now sees some help. Perhaps buying at 80% of the spot price locally rather than at full price. The idea is to throw resources at the problem when prices are the highest, not when they are the lowest. As peak demand approaches each day, a weather forecast can be used to help set the spot market price. Sunny and windy means it will be a lower price than otherwise. This renewables last approach may switch renewables from being an annoyance, to an actual help some of the time.
Another comment. It was brought up the generally utilities want solar panels facing West for peak demand. Those who don’t want that are saying to me, I want money. Those that want to face theirs West are saying, I want to help.
Considering the price trajectories downwards for renewables, possibly upwards for coal, in 20 years it will be a case of minimizing the costs by using renewables as much as possible with gas or biomass or nuclear filling in or maybe some form of storage being a factor. People still getting any power from coal will be paying a premium and their customers may be clamoring for modernization. Give it a couple of decades.
Jim, let’s wait 20 years, if you are right, we’ll adopt renewables. At present their use is, in most cases, an absurd waste of resources which could be directed to something of value.
Peter
What is the total cost of abatement bearing in mind the mining and transport of rare earths the and manufacture and transport of steel etc.
Also can you tell me the depth of concrete needed to secure a 100 metre tall wind turbine and what that represents in terms of tonnes of concrete and co2 emissions to make it? Thanks
Tonyb
