Goody, Pete. Now let’s talk about junking and recycling the bloody things. Just because I hate ’em so much. Oh, and I particularly detest their ubiquitous cabling. God, does that cabling ever suck.
I know it will likely cost too much to smash up the bases and rip out all wiring but at least we can reclaim our ridges. Let’s roll.
According to the principle of enerconics, the price of a commodity is a good proxy for energy used in securing that commodity. (http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2013/10/18/enerconics-the-relationship-between-energy-and-gdp/)
So a good rule of thumb is that if an energy source is cheaper than carbon alternatives then the total energy used in securing that source (most of it from carbon sources) is less than the energy it produces. In other words using that energy source reduces CO2 output (e.g. Hydro in Scotland)
This means that in an economy where most energy comes from carbon sources, that the total carbon-based energy used in creating the energy source is less than the carbon based energy it replaces/
If however the cost is higher than carbon alternatives, then it is likely that the sum total cost of energy used in securing that energy source is higher than the carbon-based energy it produces.
That means that if the cost is higher MORE CO2 IS PRODUCED using that energy source.
In other words, wind “energy” isn’t so much a form of energy production, but is instead rather like a battery – the energy is not “free”, but instead energy appears to be “free” but we only have it because more energy goes into producing wind power through the steel work in the machinery and the concrete in the foundations and the transport – and the energy costs of having all those sales-people and consultants.
But like all this non-science, you will never find research into the total energy costs of wind because that doesn’t suit anyone benefiting from this scam.
Andy West,
That group of 30+ letters – do you know if each letter is independent?. e.g. There are some styles that are repeated a few times, like listing emotions, underlined, as sub-headers (Byrne, Raupach, Richardson) that seem similar enough to worry whether guidelines were issued beforehand.
If I showed these letters to policy makers, could I guarantee that they are 100% ok and would not be disowned by their authors as listed?
Peter, I understand your train of thought because we perform this type of analysis in my line of work, but I think some readers will get lost. I don’t want to get personal, but senior corporate types have trouble following intricate systems with lots of moving parts, so I got used to drawing simple sketches and graphs with thick lines and huge axis labels.
I think the Spanish grid keeps detailed records. The system is highly optimized, has a lot of overcapacity, is very reliable, exchanges power with France, uses essentially all the hydro to back up wind and solar, has some energy storage using pumped power, and it may be possible to get historical data. Spain gets very good sunlight in the south, has mountains and rain in the north, enough wind, and a pretty compact shape.
Twice modded, how can someone of my meek and pleasant disposition be treated so? Faustino
Bernie1815,
The main point of the submission is stated in the first paragraph of this post:
Wind turbines are significantly less effective at reducing CO2 emissions than commonly assumed. This means the CO2 abatement cost (i.e. the cost per tonne CO2 avoided by wind turbines) is higher than commonly recognised. It is likely the CO2 abatement cost of wind turbines is commonly underestimated.
Thanks to everyone for the comments. I’ll get back to general comments and questions about wind farms later.
JimD, nuclear and coal plants lack the ability to do load following for wind or solar. The best load follower is a hydropower plant or a natural gas turbine. The system requires gas turbines to fill the gaps once all hydro is devoted to offsetting intermittency by solar and wind.
The need to fill gaps also depends on the local climate. For example, southern Spain has nice solar exposure but this is interrupted by cloudy weather, rain, and dust storms blowing sand from the Sahara (the dust covers the panels and it takes time to wash them down).
Maybe I can do a theoretical design for Spain using the current system architecture with hypothetical hvdc connection via France to Great Britain and Northern Europe, to see what it can do. The fact that such a mega project isn’t being discussed tells me it isn’t economically viable, but maybe after oil and gas supplies start getting very expensive it will be the solution.
I believe sometime within the next 25 years we will hit peak oil, peak gas, and possibly peak coal. These solutions do need to be planned for.
Fernando,
Thank you. Are you referring to the Submissions of to the post above? Are you finding the submission hard to follow?
It’s an open invitation and letters appear to have come in at different dates (across 9 months so far, although not all dated), from different orgs and different countries too, though once again Oz is a big slice. And if one received 30+ letters on any single and serious topic, there would be some overlap in style, as you see. In fact, the full style variety and content is quite wide.
But while above speaks to the likelihood that all are genuine, no, I don’t think there’s any way to *guarantee* that there wasn’t some guidelines. I doubt whether anyone is going to disown these, however. A handwritten signed letter is something folks generally stand behind.
Tsk! Cookie Monster strikes again, Faustino.
Actually it’s NOT an open invitation; I recalled wrongly. But now I remember trying to find the invite text and couldn’t. Joe Duggan might provide this I guess, if asked.
Waitin fer model projections,ter match observation is
kinda’ like waitin’ fer Godot.
Likewise waitin’ fer positive feedbacks ‘n hot spots ‘n that
prediction of no more snow.
Yeah, all the wailing and whining over only 3% of scientists.
Don’t like them? Ignore them.
One point I would like Cook to clarify. On the Real Climate post about the course they show the icons used to identify what they think are specious arguments.
But the ‘red herring’ icon is not red. I would like an explanation.
Of course I’d like also to understand why one of the gentlemen icons is wearing a condom on his head…
Some day in the future, I may be able to open my swimming pool in early May. For now I will have to wait until mid to late May. Somehow, I will learn to adapt.
JCH,
I am. I’m just a bit skeptical that there will be SLR of 10′ in NYC within the next 5 years (based on that projection and the +/1 1.7 mm/yr current rate). You?
If the public sphere is awash with agents of any type, does that constitute a substitute for sea level rise?
NYC is big place. Exactly which part is going to 10′ under, and who made the prediction?
Perhaps the new course at UQ is an opportunity to test a pet theory of mine, particularly because Brisbane lies within the sub-tropics.
How many of those enrolling are from inner-urban areas and wear scarves even at the height of summer? This scarving tendency in UHI zones – persisting through all seasons and even observed in heavily bearded young males – may explain why that demographic is more prone to believe in a warming climate.
Let’s get some hard science going here.
Peter
Thank you for taking so much of your time and energy to channel your experience in a way which might improve the future for our kids and grand-kids.
You are grappling with complex and interrelated systems, and hope to communicate the engineering and economic ramifications to both technical and non-technical audiences. Its a daunting task.
You understand better than I how your contribution complements the other submissions. As a generality, I would suggest that you simplify things for your audience by showing how the “parts” of the system “move” as wind contribution increases. Give cases with 0-5-10-15-25-50% wind power. Show how the wind turbine nameplate power x power factor x effectiveness changes and how the cost and C02 per KWH of the generating mix changes in each case, showing each component’s contribution. Work each case out all the way to a bottom line total. Put this in a chart. Its concrete. Your audiences won’t have to integrate any concepts in their heads.
Finally, use your arguments to explain why the components work together as they do, and why others may not fully appreciate what is happening and why. You will probably lose different parts of your audience at differing points along the way, but if you start with concrete numbers, then most will have some understanding of what your are trying to argue.
And thanks again!
