368 comments on The Marie Antoinette Syndrome
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
368 comments on The Marie Antoinette Syndrome
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.”
—Francis Bacon, Essays
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
If you hadn't already been made aware, Denmark currently produces 20% of its power from wind energy alone.
Solar hot water heaters are on hundreds of thousands of roofs around the world.
Hydropower is well established in dozens of countries.
You seem to suggest that we ignore improving home insulation levels, and seek only the most convenient, regardless of the overall consequences. Hardly the sentiments of the citizens of the developed countries. The vested interests do have their supporters, of course, who decry any change from the status quo, unless it is to use even more of their 'services'.
You need to provide them with the bread they can afford right now, baked in large quantities.
In other words, "feed and grow the addiction"? This sounds much like the words of a drug pusher...
I think you're missing the point. Yes these technologies CAN work, but they only get taken up if they are the best option at the time.
Wind turbines are an obvious way of saying 'green', so while resources are relatively available they are taken up as a response to climate change. Same is true of the Prius on a personal scale.
However general uptake is constrained since most people are trying to get through the week, with any other attention being take by who's doing whom on the latest reality show.
In a world where oil has peaked, you can't drive your car because there is rationing and extreme prices, and food is getting more expensive as well - you will take a solution that fixes your problems here and now.
Its no good wishing it were otherwise; that's like wishing people would all think differently. You have no control over that.
No I don't think we should 'ignore' anything. However its not a case of what should or should not happen, its a case of what will or will not. You want better insulation. Great. Find a way, a politically acceptable way, in which that is the easiest and best solution and it will happen. Same goes for driving cars. You want less journeys, answer the key question.
If I sound like a drug pusher to you, you sound like someone who says "addicts should just stop themselves wanting drugs, they just need a little backbone" to me. Reality is much more to do with making them not want or need the drugs than stating rational viewpoints of desire.
though its early, this post and its predecessor, i nominate for 'post of day'
(which is another way of saying I strongly agree with you...;)
Cheers Nate !
Sometimes it can feel like throwing out messages in a bottle and getting no reply. Its nice to get a positive response!
And in the vein of solutions rather than just pointing up problems, I'll mention one idea about how a more sustainable lifestyle can be made to look 'better' than the current lifestyle - to the average person.
Many people are saying the route to a solution is for people to accept a lower energy lifestyle, to do less with cars, flying, McMansions etc.
That's great, but that is very much a lifestyle choice. Much of the time the implicit words behind it are "do less of the things you enjoy because its good for the earth", often with a distinctly hippy subtone. We know that doesn't work, we know its not something people will buy or accept - not since the last tie-die shirt was burnt in the 1970s.
Instead I'd suggest losing the green tinge and not mentioning peak oil. Rather its a 'plan', similar to the F-Plan diet for making yourself happier, decluttering your life, removing the hustle and bussle and relaxing, eating organically, not giving a **** what the neighbour's think; and giving yourself a lifestyle where you are relaxed, happy, andwhere you only work 10 months of the year with more time off to enjoy yourself and family.
Sell it as a method, sell it as a plan, sell it with a celeb, sell the sizzle of things people want and as a way to get rid of things they don't. That way people are more likely to give up on the McMansions, the pointless gadgets, the driving everywhere, etc. and take up a lifestyle that is less energy intensive.
If you don't like that idea, fine. However something like it is probably the only way the majority of people will take a blind bit of notice, so you'd better dream up something equally enticing.
that was one of my messages at ASPO - we have to make changes for selfish/tribal reasons due to our inherent drive to compete for resources. to tell someone to turn the lights off will only work if they buy into the plan that it improves their own life and well being - otherwise they will agonize over that energy being used to build 5 more feet of cement in China - tragedy of the commons meets jevons paradox.
From an electricity standpoint, the reference to Chinese cement does not apply. From a petroleum standpoint, spending less money on whimsical energy use always makes sense. National goals such as having the nation less addicted to oil makes as much sense as other national security goals.
People have been changing out incandescent bulbs for CFLs, though doing so doesn't necessary proportionally improve their life.
I live at a latitude where I need heat and light at the same time - the cheapest way (and simplest by far) to do this is with an incandescent lamp.
Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) aren't always a good idea, it depends how you currently provide heat and electricity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
Xeroid.
From your link...
"If incandescent lamps are replaced by CFLs and all other factors are kept constant then the temperature inside any building will reduce. At times when the building requires both heating and lighting, the occupiers might then increase the space heating in order to bring the temperature back to a desired level. Depending on the source of this alternative heat compared to the local source of electricity, this may result in either a small increase or a small decrease in the total cost and environmental impact of changing to CFLs."
So what makes your particular housing situation so unique?
Spending winters at the North Pole and summers at the South?
Even if you use direct electrical heating you will in practice use less electricity for heating and lighting combined with CFL's. The waste heat from incandescent bulbs emitted near the ceiling and largely staying there is much less efficient at heating the inhabitants, the only thing that really matters, than heat from electrical heaters lower down.
Even in theory, you could only finish up using the same amount of electricity at times when you need both heating and lighting and there can be very few places that do not need lighting without heating at some time. If you are heating your house with a source that is more expensive or polluting that direct electricity, allowing for for all the losses in generation and transmission of electricity, then you should change to electrical heating.
If you require cooling and lighting at the same time then the advantages are multiplied as with incandescents you are using electricity to produce waste heat end then more electricity to get rid of it.
The longer life of CFL's means the overall cost will always be cheaper unless you are foolish enough to heat your house with some means more expensive than electricity when you have this available to use.
As for 'simplest by far' what is complex about changing a light bulb?
Okay, let's say I'm in Vermont, with most of the power from Hydro Quebec (flooding First Nations land which incidentally releases a lot of mercury as it's flooded), a substantial chunk from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant (terrible record on basic safety measures), and a small dose of more local hydro and even wind - no coal in the mix. I should heat with "clean" electricity - even through my light bulbs? For minor space heating, sure, but like most people around here I notice that it's still only half the cost to burn oil, which a typical boiler does fairly efficiently. Like many here, I significantly supplement with wood. But Northern New England's likely to stay on oil until the last drop, or radical new tech, whichever comes first. However, at least one neighbor is considering putting a coal stove in his basement.
It is fashionable on this board to deride J6P.
Maybe J6P isn't anywhere as dumb as people here seem to think.
We are caught in a vise with the banking and political elites cheating us on one side and the minority welfare activists demanding ever more entitlements on the other.
Looking at it from J6P's point of view, tactically it makes the most sense to run the whole system into the concrete wall full speed ahead, because we are the ones that have the most useful skills to make something off the wreckage, and because there is no viable solution at the ballot box.
Think about it.
Comparing smaller advanced societies like Denmark, Sweden or Norway with their much more homogeneous demographics to the US is a exercise in futility. The conditions on the ground are what they are and there is no way around them.
Rather, we are caught in a vise with the economic system cheating many at the same time the majority contented class demands ever more entitlements.
The obstacle to a decline protocol is the existing contented class: the greatest generation, the haves, the wealthy. They run the show, not the hordes of welfare queens driving pink Cadillacs. We already have the political solution the dominant class prefers: business as usual.
Activists are next to powerless against the economic machine - at least if they try to work within the system.
cfm in Gray, ME
Yeah! Those damned entitlement parasites.
Why don't they just stay at home and die?
Whoops. They do. In Japan: the model of efficiency.
First of all PO is a liquid fuel crisis, not an electric one, so additional coal use is not an emergency necessity. Second, your argument depends on how ones define 'best options.' Options that continues this motoring madness at the expense of our children's future can hardly be described as 'best.' Fossil fuels left not poured into the automobile maw can still power the construction of an alternative electrical energy grid. That would honor the earth's fossil fuel bounty.
As long as Britain is fighting a war for petroleum in the Middle East than its 'national scale' has been skewed. It is a matter of priorities. Do we as a people chose habitual waste and consumption or do we choose to reallocate our taxes and wealth to a sustainable future.
There are veiled implication of 'elistim' in your comments as if the 'regular folk' need indulging. This is paternalism. If not hidden from the truth, these hardworking stiffs might surprise us with their willingness to change. If only they had a willing leader ready to stop propagandizing for the status quo.
This feels like fatalism. To help an addicts not want drugs you offer alternative behaviors and views. Maybe if a creative politician ran a real vision in exchange for sacrifice instead of the status quo folks would rise to the occasion.
I'll say again, YOU don't get the opportunity to define 'best', the public at large do that. If they think Coal-to-liquids is 'best' then that's what will happen.
You want to change that? Make your alternative 'best' in their eyes. If you can't then they will not take any notice.
That's a distinct lack of paternalism, and a bounty of realism...
I'll say again, YOU don't get the opportunity to define 'best', the public at large do that. If they think Coal-to-liquids is 'best' then that's what will happen.
You can repeat things until you are blue in the face, but that does not make what you say any more rational. In reality, only some of the public gets to chose their power source these days; the power companies wield signficant political clout, and they lobby (grease palms) to ensure their choices are government-approved. Indeed, in my state, Dominion power has successfully prevented green power companies from gaining a foothold, and have convinced the state legislature, to whom they have contributed almost almost $3.8 million in campaign contributions over the last 10 years, along with lavishing them with gifts, to accept Dominion Power's own drafted bill to reregulate electricity in the state.
Want to see what such political power allows them to get away with? See the mix of renewables in their power generation.
The net-metering law Dominion Power allowed to be passed restricts renewable power sources 0.01% of the generation.
Go to their website and look for any "green" power options; you'll find none you can purchase. There are talk of 'plans' and 'projections', but this has been the case for over 20 years.
So people won't pick Coal-to-liquids, the coal and oil companies will. I'm surprised you would think that readers of this forum would be so gullible. The elitism mentioned earlier is still evident in this thread.
You're misunderstanding the rules of the game. It not rationality that in charge, its realism. Its no good bemoaning big business or the public doing other than you would wish, the only way to win is to the play the game with the rules that exist, rational or not.
Realism? One particular truth (that our democracy has been hijacked by the wealthy) should not be conflated with other pertinent truths (modest lifestyle change will obviate need for coal plants) (a Marshal-plan for renewables) (etc.)
This is exactly how a lobbyist would respond.
I pity you, for you cannot distinguish between realism and fatalism.
You are doomed to die.
(hey aren't we all?)
I think missionary revolutionaries are much more dangerous than vested interest reactionaries. The second at least know they are being hypocritical and counter common good - under certain circumstances they can be shown the common good is their good too. Revolutionaries don't know that - they are just too busy saving the world to give their ideas second thoughts.
If you want to change the system - first learn the system. Everything has a reason and you should know the reason before suggest smashing it all to the ground and recreating it your way. Without addressing the reasons, you will end up with a system much worse than the first one. Happens all the time. I lived within such an experiment, and my home country which I love, still suffers from the result.
No, thanks, no more revolutions.
You're the one missing the point. The only reasons why coal is so cheap is:
1 - It's an old industry that has all the processes very matured and understood - read Let's stick to what we know bkay?
2 - They have tremendous tax benefits;
3 - The network is built around these kind of resources, and not exactly around renewables;
4 - Coal price is not accounted for in its environmental prejudice, as is:
a) topsoil destruction;
b) pollution;
c) carbon dioxide proliferation.
5 - An entire powerful lobby industry that fights everyday to mantain its status quo and fights against renewables.
Even still, renewables are the most rising energy industry. Amazing.
Renewables not only have to fight against status quo, but also higher taxes (yes, that is right), and lack of lobbyists. If even TOD people are arguing for and not against Coal, what would we expect? These people, completely disregarding our real potential and capabilities, opt for the least wrong possibility (ex: destroy the f*in world) than to destroy the economy, missing out entirely the power of renewables.
We should be crying out loud RENEWABLES! RENEWABLES! and totally disregarding any FUD whatsoever. I don't CARE if wind's EROEI is only half of that of coal. For Coal is "cheap", if by cheap we mean dispense with the check our grandchildren will have to pay. It's the same problem as with the entire mortgage problem. People don't care about the future, as long as today they have the money. It turns out though, that future really comes along sometime, and that means pain in the ass to all of those who opt for unsustainable solutions.
So, NO, coal is not the answer and should NEVER be. I don't agree with the article at ALL. This article is simply a cowardly excuse to continue BAU with these shitty resources, and thus excusing every politician and "pundit" that lobbies with these destructive industries, while dismissing real solutions, or at least attempts at so. For example, people argue that we should wait even further for future wind power generators, or sun power generators. NO. The time IS NOW. We don't have much time LEFT. We are burning the earth and the scientists are scared shit out of what is happening in the arctic. We should too. We are already scared shit of PO. So, we should bandwagon this NOW.
For if the Iraq's war is about oil, it is surely not about energy. The amount of energy anyone will get out of this country will never pay off the war. The money used (a trillion dollars) could boost by so much the renewables it would make manhattan project like an insect.
Yet people talk as if we are out of options. And thus you leave your politicians out of criticism. You choose a small-talk of "less evils" in a time when we should opt for WIN WIN solutions. You even opt to sustain reasonably these kinds of choices when it is so clear that it is so wrong.
You're wrong. And our grandchildren will account for everyone of us by the wrong choices we are making now. I know my son will. Remember that!
Please, consider!
We have only one future!
Let's fight for it!
EROEI is another of those undefined variables.
EROEI of coal apparently only includes the cost of getting it out of the ground. It does not include the real energy IN (sunlight) plus the time value of the energy (worked on for millions of years by geological processes).
Not correct to compare with EROEI for solar or wind power where direct sunlight conversion to electric power is being measured.
1) The time to create the coal does not impact EROI nor should it. for human use purposes we care about the energy WE input in order to get an energy output - in this sense the millions of years to us are 'free'. If we were an infinite lived alien species, then your point would be valid. But when comparing high energy gain fossil fuels (which allow us to do immense amounts of work to flows of sunlight, which are great but allow us to do less work is the issue.
2)But you are on the right track - EROI comparisons of coal and solar do not (normally) include externality costs parsed into energy terms - if we assign a real energy cost to the GHG and pollution impacts of coal the EROI would plummet - so in the end we have 2 goals at odds - energy and the environment. neither the market nor EROI can presently solve this puzzle.
OK Nate Hagens.
You are free to set the boundary conditions. Defined your way, coal is like a one-time feeding of the fish tank. Human beings are not infinitely long lived as individuals, but we flatter ourselves that the species might survive a long time.
From a physical point of view, it takes an awful lot of sunlight and geological heat, over a very long time, to produce coal. The energy in must be many, many times the energy out. So coal is more like a storage battery -- on a geological time scale.
Yup - as are oil and natural gas....
I see your point, and it is certainly applicable to some people/countries. However, it would seem that the following examples don't necessarily fit this:
- Large European wind/solar investment costs born as increased tax burden by all citizens.
- Apparent variations in acceptability of different environmental regulations/costs.
- Generational differences in lifestyle choices in US.
?
I've often wondered whether anyone here would bring up this point...cultural differences seem to translate into rather significant actions (or, inaction)in this context.
In other words, your vision of the future is ever-deepening poverty, people living in caves, while you sit around making smug pronouncements disconnected from all political, social, and even physical reality? If Denmark had to live off that wind power tomorrow or anytime soon, it would collapse, as wind supplies only 20% of only a part of even their documented overall consumption. And lets not mention what they consume indirectly, via imports of goods and services other than fossil fuels.
Sentiments are too cheap to meter and are thus unworthy of attention. When they get their self-righteous dander up, "citizens" will do anything, even engage in self-hurt, to avenge themselves upon the so-called "vested interests" who deliver the bad news that they have to get up in the morning and go to work, and that even then, they still can't have everything they say they want. No one wants to hear that, least of all "citizens" puffed up with gangrenously swollen 'self-esteem'.
One of their most impossible wants seems to be a planet with seven billion people that is identical in every respect to a planet with zero people. But they don't mean it, it's just a way to express their NIMBYism, economic jealousy, obstructionist desire for revenge, and general frustration with their own irremediable, gaping, wide-mouthed incomprehension of the world. After all, when electric rates or gasoline prices
go through the roofgo up even a few percent, then instantly they howl to a different tune. In the end, no possible way exists to please either them or you, and there's no use even trying.HO, by injecting a note of reality, I think you just started what is going to be one of TOD's worst-ever doomfests.
You're the one doomfestating this thread.
And your vision of the future is one that is already scripted by yourself to doom, where anything you do is meaningless as the conondrum is already moving towards the inevitable. You act not like a passive observant, but as a coward, for the difference being in that you don't find in this view of coal boom anything wrong, just what "is possible" without creating "poverty" all around.
You are stuck in the past. You are stuck with the lack of vision. The problems with renewables aren't its potentials. It's problems are political and lobbyistical.
And you are just helping the crooks.
So mind not if I'm not very polite towards these kinds of manifestos. I despise them, not because they are "realistic", for surely they "are", but because they view "reality" as something inevitably towards "coal", to conclude that
"it ain' that bad ya know, 'cause a lil' warmin, what's wrong in tha'?"
Its wrong. Put the glasses. You're not seeing past your own nose.
And is that feasible? I mean, is it sustainable? Just because there is no country in the world sustainable yet, should we stop endorsing it?
What would your grandparents think of you, the ones that abolished slavery, death penalty (oh wait!), and fought for human rights and universal suffrage? What would you say to them if you were one of their own? My guess:
Oh but there is no country that survives without slavery! You're being pathetic!
Great hallmark there, mister. One that will fit well in history, no doubt about that.
But you misunderstand politics, mister. A politician should never try to please its population, but to LEAD them. Yeah, I know, these kinds of people are rare, but if we just abandon our hopes and rely on what "we have", we are doomed. We must fight for more! We should demand MORE of leaders.
Your entire view is narrowed to death. We should aspire to go to the galaxy and give a big finger to Fermi's paradox. We should aspire to go further and never backwards. What are you afraid of? What have you to lose? Why, oh old man, you're so stuck to yourself like a rotten fruit?
If you are to rant me back, nevermind it, go rather sulk in your bedroom. I haven't that time to waste.
BY THE WAY, Marie Antoinette was BEHEADED, which renders the entire thread MOOT.
Not moot, but it does speak to the ultimate end of proceeding as the article suggests.
In some ways, bread becomes literal rather than metaphoric, as food production is extremely energy intensive. Every calorie of food we eat it the result of burning ten calories of fossil fuels, for nitrogen fertilizer production, deisel tractors, shipping, etc. There is no possible way renewables will ever be able to meet our entire energy needs. Just supplying New York city alone with electricity would require a solar panel the size of Conneticuit. And that isn't even counting distribution costs, ways of capturing or storing the energy for days with less sun, making the solar panels, keeping them free of dirt and debris, powering future electric cars or heaters, food producton, industry, etc. Most energy consumption isn't even electric. It's difficult to imagine even mining materials from the earth and industrial manufacture of turbines or photovoltaics without fossil fuel energy.
So the point of the article is that as we run out of oil, we may be forced to open up this pandora's box of coal.
"Every calorie of food we eat it the result of burning ten calories of fossil fuels, for nitrogen fertilizer production, deisel tractors, shipping, etc."
Actually, that 10x ratio is for the whole food system, including the processing of twinkies, etc. It's much lower for making relatively unprocessed food, like bread.
"There is no possible way renewables will ever be able to meet our entire energy needs. "
Sure, they can. Rooftops provide enough space for PV, should we want to go to the extreme of using just one power source (not really optimal).
" It's difficult to imagine even mining materials from the earth and industrial manufacture of turbines or photovoltaics without fossil fuel energy."
Not really. Actually, a lot of mining is electric, and PV manufacturing is almost entirely electric.
You must have a vested interest.
PV manufacturing...CRAP, assembly you should say. Where do the raw materials come from........thin air....what about delivery, installation and labour.
You make off the cuff statements with no backup.
What "LOT" of mining is electric?
Rooftops for PV to power New York.... what a load of crap.
You make outlandish claims and expect everyone to believe it will happen. Come on tell me you think it WILL happen but when you do, tell us how and when, including who by and how much it will cost just to make sure it IS viable.
"it is much lower for a loaf of bread" I'd like to see your energy ratio for a loaf of bread sitting on my sideboard (don't leave anything out} then I'll compare for myself, without just having to take your word for it.
I'd like to see you compare the solar flux on NYC times its area versus the electric consumption (which is key to deciding if PV would be adequate to run the city), but you don't seem to be the kind of person to let mere facts get in the way of an ideological rant.
As opposed to the copious quantities of solid evidence you provide to back up your statements.
Oh, wait...
There is no future energy other than coal, yada, yada, yada, we need fossil fuel to produce our food, yada, yada, yada, this can get old real fast.
By coincidence as I was reading this post I noticed this quote in the margin:
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard Feynman
I really admire Richard Feynman and while I basically agree with this statement of his, the necessity of public relations can never be underestimated. How else could you make good money off of Worm poop as a commercial fertilizer?
http://www.terracycle.net/revolution_5.htm
"One answer lies in worm poop! Worm poop has a market price that is close to $0.50 per pound or $1,000 per ton. That's over 3,000% higher than the value of compost!"
The problem with the folks who are stuck in the past is that they really are completely unable to think outside the proverbial six sided cardboard box. So how the heck can you expect them to think outside of a box that is a glass icosahedron. They can't even visualize the box.
F Magyar
That cardboard box makes excellent feed for the worms and is therefore a worm poop precursor. The main thing about worm castings, though, is that they work. Their public relations is any good compost heap or a healthy soil in a garden, a folk wisdom gained from experience and relying on traditional gardening methods. And that's thinking inside the box and recycling the box too and all without the benefit of a moronic cliche' like "think outside the box". Bob Ebersole
Bob, I have to assume from your comment that you didn't bother to even look at the link I posted. Had you done so you might have been aware that the results of traditional composting, while certainly not a bad thing by itself, doesn't provide much bang for the buck, so to speak. It was only by not trafficking in the usual tired old cliches but rather engaging in some rather non traditional approaches that worm poop becomes profitable. Anyways, that you are even talking about worm poop and composting just underscores the fact that you have missed my point completely. Which was, to put it a bit more succintly, one person's worm shit is another's expensive fertilizer and that it takes some non traditional thinking to to see profit in worm shit. I'll bet the moronic owner of that idea is laughing all the way to the bank.
Your Denmark has 20% wind. And your Denmark has 60% coal.
It's per capita CO2 emissions are among the highest in Europe, higher than Germany and nearly twice those in France. And they have been rising recently.
Think about it.
Denmark used to burn coal for over 95% of their electricity needs. By utilizing increasingly higher amounts of wind generation, they are moving in the right direction (and coal use is now down under 55%).
reference
The problem is that it is not "increasingly" and in fact Denmark is moving to nowhere. They stopped adding new wind 2 years ago due to physical infrastructure constraints. Their experiment ended - and looking at their emissions the results are poor.
Their wind capacity in fact provides for only 5% of the domestic consumption. Due to wind variation the rest is dumped to the Norway / Sweden grid, where it displaces... clean hydro.
Consequently their emissions have everything but stalled, and in recent years have actually increased. And they still remain among the highest in Europe. I can provide you the numbers if you like.
I'm not against wind but it has quite a few limitations. In other places it may perform better; Denmark is not even the best place for it.
I would indeed like to see where all of your figures came from above. I hope you are not confusing electricity production with all forms of energy consumption (i.e., cars, heating, etc). And the U.S.s CO2 emissions are twice those of Denmark's. See, I can bold too...
- Denmark produced 45 per cent more energy than it consumed itself in 2006.
http://www.ens.dk/sw47770.asp
- Fox News: Twenty percent of Denmark's energy needs are now met by electricity generated by wind turbines, and the proportion is steadily increasing.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203293,00.html
- Since 1990 adjusted CO2 emissions have dropped by 13.7 per cent.
http://www.ens.dk/sw47770.asp
- Denmark plans to increase wind energy production to 50%
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46749
What is your point comparing Demark with US? US is a CO2 spewing monster, you'd better compare it to its neighbouring Scandinavian countries. Here is some comparative data:
Carbon emissions per capita, tonnes of carbon (2000-2004):
Denmark: 2.37 2.45 2.42 2.81 2.68
Sweden: 1.43 1.45 1.66 1.44 1.61
France: 1.64 1.71 1.68 1.68 1.64
Source: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm
Denmark produced 45 per cent more energy than it consumed itself in 2006
Denmark is a significant oil and NG exporter.
Natural gas exports (net) - 4.964 billion cu m (2006 est.)
Oil exports (net) - 156,000 bbl/day (2006)
Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/da.html
Denmark plans to increase wind energy production to 50%
Better start now. Here is a table for you:
For these 10 years renewable generation has increased from 1.7 to 8.0 Gwh, but thermal generation (mostly coal) has also increased - from 30.2 to 35.3 GWh. Wind has not been able to decrease coal usage and emissions.
In the light of these numbers Denmark does not seem to be such a green tiger after all.
For these 10 years renewable generation has increased from 1.7 to 8.0 Gwh, but thermal generation (mostly coal) has also increased - from 30.2 to 35.3 GWh. Wind has not been able to decrease coal usage and emissions.
Sources please.
You took a look at the table didn't you? The original source is there - DOE/EIA. I borrowed the table from the blog post here:
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/01/213-something-fishy-in-denma...
Feel free to cross check the numbers if you doubt the data.
First, Norway does not produce all of it's electricty, so it imports it;
Electricity - production: 108.9 billion kWh (2004)
Electricity - consumption: 112.8 billion kWh (2004)
Electricity - exports: 3.8 billion kWh (2004)
Electricity - imports: 15.3 billion kWh (2004)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html
So 'displacing clean hydro' is simply your blogger's misguided spin.
Secondly, the figures you cited do not match up with Denmark's own numbers. One can only wonder where EIA obtained their information, or whether the blogger made some errors entering the table data. Note the values for coal drop 53% from 1994 to 2005. The thermal generation you had assumed was coal turns out to include natural gas, waste, biomass, biogas, all of which have increased significantly in that timeframe. So take care when using aggregated data in the future.
I'm sorry I'm already tired of this and I've had this discussion maybe a dozen times.
1) Whether Norway is importing or exporting electricity is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it uses primary hydro - and the wind imported from Denmark is displacing its own hydro resources. The reason is technical - hydro electricity may be ramped up and down very quickly and this is so far the only way to handle wind variations. Coal can not be ramped up and down quickly.
My point was that wind is not displacing coal in Denmark. And never will.
2) The table I showed was correct. You are comparing apples to oranges with your table - it is showing energy content of fuels, my table is for electricity production.
3) You are right - my assumption that the thermal generation in Denmark in 2003 was the same as structure as in 1993 was wrong. From your own table you can see that natural gas rose and coal dropped. But overall thermal generation stayed the same and even rose. They effectively replaced their coal with natural gas. UK did the same thing in the 90s and that's how they lowered their emissions, because NG is cleaner. Obviously Denmark followed suit - which is good for them, but no big deal.
Since now North Sea is depleted UK is going back to coal (read the original post). Denmark will soon follow. They don't have other choice - they need a secure source for baseload electricity.
If you study a little bit about how the electricity grid works you would find why wind is not an alternative to neither coal nor nuclear and can not replace them. They have different roles and provide different services. Wind has its place but don't expect too much of it.
During this period Swedish and Danish "greens" got the Swedish Barsebäck nuclear powerplant closed. One 600 MW BWR were closed in 1999 and the other 600 MW BWR in 2005. They were mostly replaced with old Danish coal power. Happy Danish "greens" and happy Danish coal power owners. *katching*
The sister reactor Oskarshamn 2 is due to be uprated to 840 MW. Barsebäck 1 and 2 are not torn down but it wold take years to refurbish them.
I'm sorry I'm already tired of this and I've had this discussion maybe a dozen times.
Perhaps you might set aside some of your opinions when they are confronted by facts that negate them.
1) Whether Norway is importing or exporting electricity is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it uses primary hydro - and the wind imported from Denmark is displacing its own hydro resources.
I find this statement incredulous, to say the least. Hydro is imminently dispatchable, and is a perfect complement to wind power. When the wind doesn't blow, use hydro. When wind is blowing, save up the hydro for other times.
"Displacement of hydro" is a non-sensical statement. The hydro is not 'wasted' in any stretch of the imagination, especially when the hydro does not completely fulfill the demand.
My point was that wind is not displacing coal in Denmark. And never will.
Such desperate pronouncements have been already proven false by the information provided above; why do you persist in this falsehood?
Coal generation fell by over 50% (-55k TJ). Yes, it was displaced in part by gas generation (+23k TJ), but in larger part by renewable energy sources (+30k TJ) of which wind was +20k TJ.
So unless you can provide reliable information to refute Denmark's own statistics, you may want to stand back and reflect on why you cling to the positions espoused in the blogs you referenced.
I need to ask you to stop for a second and take a look again what you just wrote.
Your post shows lack of basic understanding about electricity production. I'll remember this one as one of the biggest masterpieces I've seen on this site:
You are obviously unaware that the water that flows from a river and is kept behind a dam is a limited resource. Do you imagine it replenishes itself magically and the dam is always full? What is this? Abiotic water?!? I bet you are also unaware that some of it is used also for irrigation.
If you don't believe me take a look what happens in Climate Change ridden Australia:
Water is, in fact, aboitic. I comes from clouds.
Wind and hydro supplement each other and together displace coal. This is a pretty basic concept. Perhaps what is holding you up is the idea that base load is fundemental. It is not. It is a kluge that is outliving its usefulness.
Chris
Please don't try to cover up his foolish statement.
I feel awakard I need to explain that the "abiotic water" was a joke, allusion with the self-replenishing "abiotic oil".
I'm happy to understand that baseload is already an obsolate concept. The best news since the Congress recalled the second law of thermodynamics. Now if those pesky electrical engineers could get that too.
Perhaps this is another conceptual difficulty. Rain does replenish itself.
You should understand that naming portions of the electric supply is not physics, it is simply a set of lables that have been useful in the past. Things are changing so new labels will likely be more useful in the future. To me, base load is coming to mean lacking sufficient flexibility.
Chris
Actually "base load" means continuous stable supply. This concept will never be abandoned simply because some sources will always have more expensive variable costs and low fixed cost (peaking load) and some sources will be vice versa (baseload). It makes economic sense to use the baseload ones at their maximum while the peaking to follow demand. Theoretically you could build the whole grid with "baseload sources" - you just need to overbuild above peak demand and disconnect them when they are not needed. But it would be twice as expensive.
What may change in future is how we can achieve baseload, not the concept itseld - that is how we can achieve a stable stream of cheap electricity. Wind plus hydro may provide for this - but you have to match peak wind with peak hydro because the wind can stop any time. Some additional hydro or natural gas may be used for demand following. The problem with wind is that the options to balance it are limited - most places in the world do not have enough hydro resources and NG is expensive. We need cheap efficient storage.
Storage is a more useful concept for the future than base load I think.
Hope you are right. I mean it.
But the truth is that if the concept "storage" existed, all of the following concepts: base load, peak load, grid regulation, spinning reserve will automatically disappear.
The job of grid operators is how to make ends meet without storage and they go through a hell of a trouble because they don't have it. Me and 10 million electrical engineers are holding our thumbs, but personally I'm not buying that champaign bottle yet.
There will be time for champaign when the job is done. The first thing now is to grow installed renewable capacity at an enourmous rate while anticipating the need for storage.
Chris
- Let's say storage costs go down to as low as $0.02/kwth (hurray)
- Wind power costs $0.06-0.08/kwth onshore - not likely to go down much further, actually with depletion of good sites it should get more expensive
- A kwth stored in a battery (ignoring degradation) will return 0.86kwth based on 86% efficiency - so the total cost of the battery kwth will be:
(0.06 - 0.08)/0.86 + 0.02 = $0.09 - 0.11
Looking at bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/energyprices.html
The peaking power in West Coast costs 65$/MWh = $0.065/kwth, about twice less than wind + storage.
If you are wondering why they are building wind at all if it costs more than peaking power - if you substract the 1.8c subsidy wind becomes exactly competitive to peaking power (which it supplements, in practice saving NG, it can't compete with baseload, which is about half the peaking price).
California has mandates for renewable energy and PG&E is smart to lock those batteries and get them by the cheap - they know they will need them. They don't have any choice - they are not allowed to build neither coal nor nuclear. The results you'll see in your bill - it will be slowly growing as wind and storage grow too. Solar has yet to deliver acceptable costs and the only reason they are putting it at this point are the heavy subsidies (check your bill again).
I suspect such policies are feasible in times of prosperity and in places like California. Not likely to sell them to China or India.
Wind has another factor of 2 to fall I think. We are beginning to see scales for wind that can approach this. It is worth remembering that the storage premium is not applied to all of wind since much can be used as it is generated. Up to about 20% of generating capacity there should be little need for storage. But you have a point that it is what we might once have thought of as base load that will make use of storage. What is interesting to me is that synergy with transportation can make storage so cheap tight at the start, before scale. Now, transportation may come up with batteries that work perfectly until they fail completely and this won't happen, but it is and interesting thing now, just at the beginning.
The bulk of solar that gets installed in the next 20 years will be cheaper than coal. This is just the way exponential growth works. Parity is expected in 2015. Parity with retail electricity is happening now.
China seems to be in a similar situation though because they have less in the way of local initiative, they are doing less to lead in bringing scale to solar. Their manufacturing for export is growing though. The California, New Jersey and a few other US markets together with Spain should take over from Germany in providing the impetus for scale. The sign ups we've had so far (23,000 in a year) show there is a market for our 100,000 system per year manufacturing plant. These are offered for rent at the same rate for power as the utilities charge. Since these do not take advantage of state rebates, this is getting close to no subsidy, though there is a federal solar investment tax incentive and for depreciation these are considered 5-year properties. A few more cost reductions and solar will match utility rates even in coal country without subsidy. In areas like the Northeast, federal subsidies boost profits for us but owing to high utility rates, I think we'd be pretty close profitable without them. Current subsidies are hastening the day when electric rates begin to fall owing to substitution of lower cost solar for coal.
Chris
Your post shows lack of basic understanding about electricity production... You are obviously unaware that the water that flows from a river and is kept behind a dam is a limited resource. Do you imagine it replenishes itself magically and the dam is always full?
Err, rainfall is the source of riverwater behind dams. No, the dam isn't always full, that's why wind power is helpful to conserve the stored energy in hydropower for times that the wind isn't blowing.
If Australia was dependent on hydro, it would benefit them greatly to boost their wind power to offset their reduced water resources.
I'm an electro-mechanical engineer whose degree had a special focus on power generation, so please don't act condescending.
What is this? Abiotic water?!?
?? Of course! Rain comes from clouds which are formed over warmer parts of the ocean. Will the climate change, resulting in perhaps less rainfall for areas dependent on hydropower, so yes, we should be burning less and less coal every year. How to answer the baseload problem? Instituting demand side management (in its many forms) in all control areas would seriously reduce the level of baseload power required to maintain grid stability.
Mentioned a couple of times over the last two days, in 2005, U.S. electricity providers reported total peak-load reductions of 25,710 megawatts resulting from demand-side management (DSM) programs, a 9.3 percent increase from the amount reported in 2004. See a DoE initiative at http://gridwise.pnl.gov/
If you truly are an electrical engineer, I'd be happy to see you refute the above numbers with substantive discussion. You seem to have forgotten all about Denmark's displacement of coal burning with wind, so I will assume you concur with the findings of my previous post.
No, the dam isn't always full, that's why wind power is helpful to conserve the stored energy in hydropower for times that the wind isn't blowing
OR in another words wind is displacing some hydro power and saving some water resource for later. Which is a good thing - but it only supports my initial point that wind did not reduce the need for coal in Denmark. "Abiotic water" of course was a joke. Now, what you need is the following graph (from your links):
Large scale capacity (mostly coal and NG) remains the same. Wind has not helped Denmark retire any of its thermal plants.
Now Denmark is a small country and its year by year production vary widely - due to varying imports and exports. Looking at the graph of electricity production:
shows how total electricity varies year by year - and the drivers for that are largely coal and NG. Looking at years 2000-2003 there is a growth of both total electricity and total FF production (watch up to the yellow line) and the next two years it goes down to about 2000 level.
Again for such a small country year over year production variations are big and a bit misleading. For example FF production in 2003 is higher than 1994-95 - and wind has gone on top of it. What matters is the first graph - if CPPs and NG plants are not retired they will be eventually used (when demand grows). Putting more wind is problematic - they can't do it in their own grid and have to rely on their neighbors to balance it. But don't expect it to reduce their own fossil fuel usage by much.
I did not know that we were arguing about DSM. I am 100% behind DSM and I know it is effective. In Bulgaria we have day/night tier pricing and I have seen graphs how it changes the total load. And I'm not an engineer, I don't know how you got this idea.
The depth of your willful blindness is proven by your own graph: it proves the exact opposite of what you have been asserting.
Look at the generation totals for 1994 and 2004. They were approximately the same, but the total for fossil (coal, oil and natural gas) fell from about 140 (units unspecified) in 1994 to about 110 in 2004. The difference was made up largely by wind (which looks to be about 4-5x as large, by eyeball) and a considerable increase (double or so) of "other". The increase in wind is much greater, both relatively and in absolute numbers, than the increase in "other".
It's obvious that you are not an engineer. An engineer wouldn't be able to ignore crucial facts for long and still have a job.
Over the years fossil fuel production remains fairly constant. Compare 1994-1995 with 2000-2003
It is impossible to perform an analysis based on this graph only. The amount of imports and exports is distorting the picture. What matters in this case is that wind was able to displace just 5% of domestic electricity - the rest is exported and is displacing foreign hydro. In a closed grid without much hydro or NG wind won't be able to scale at all.
" The amount of imports and exports is distorting the picture."
There's no question that wind is most effective as part of a very large grid, and that Denmark is too small to operate independently. This isn't a criticism of wind, really.
"the rest is exported and is displacing foreign hydro. "
But doesn't the displaced hydro eventually get used to displace coal and other Fossil Fuels?
But doesn't the displaced hydro eventually get used to displace coal and other Fossil Fuels?
Hydro is largely used to meet peak demand. It's alternative is NG, so at best wind would displace some NG. In reality some of the spared water resources will be diverted for irrigation and some of them will be used to meet growing demand rather than reducing FFs. In the larger Nordic grid wind contribution is in the single digits - which can be easily overwhelmed by the growing demand.
"Hydro is largely used to meet peak demand."
Currently that's the case, because hydro is limited. If you have more available, then you can start using it for mid-level demand.
"It's alternative is NG, so at best wind would displace some NG. In reality some of the spared water resources will be diverted for irrigation and some of them will be used to meet growing demand rather than reducing FFs."
This makes sense, and yet your emphasis seems just slightly off. There is the implication that somehow the displaced hydro doesn't get used in some valuable way. If more hydro is available, it can be used in a number of ways, but they're all valuable. If the Utility System Operator wants to reduce NG, what the heck. Perhaps they'll start moving down into coal territory, or use it for irrigation, or use it for new demand. All of these things are valuable.
" In the larger Nordic grid wind contribution is in the single digits - which can be easily overwhelmed by the growing demand."
Again, how is this low value?
I never said that wind has "low value". I only said that it has certain limits and its potential to replace fossil fuels or traditional generation is well... limited. They are additionally limited by the problems it faces trying to displace coal in coal-dominated grids.
How much limited is a matter of discussion. With enough investment wind can be "pushed" to certain percentage of course, but how long can it go is debatable. How long is it feasible to go is even more debatable.
I'm still to see a large scale solution going beyond 20%... and I think there are certain reasons for that. At 20% of the kwth-s produced and 25% load factor this means peak wind MWs would need to be 90% of the average demand, or something like half of peak and above "baseload" generation. Thus wind gusts at periods of low demand would need to be dumped to neighboring areas or simply rejected. Obviously you can't dump electricity around if all of your neighbors are trying to do that too... thus wind in Denmark reaches 20% only because it's neighbors are good enough not to overbuild wind too. Within the local grids wind can reach high penetration, but not very likely within a larger grid - and in Europe it is still somewhere around 4%.
"At 20% of the kwth-s produced and 25% load factor this means peak wind MWs would need to be 90% of the average demand, or something like half of peak and above "baseload" generation. Thus wind gusts at periods of low demand would need to be dumped to neighboring areas or simply rejected. "
I agree, night time demand is wind's biggest problem. Nuclear has the same problem - the French do the same as the Danes: they export to countries with hydro at night, and import back during the day.
The easiest and cheapest solution is moving demand to the night. Fortunately, a very large night-time demand is on the horizon: PHEV/EV's. Converting just 50% of US light vehicle miles to electricity would create an average of 150GW of demand during an 8 hour night time window, which is about 1/3 of average demand. That's enough to raise your practical market share for wind from 20% to at least 30%.
Of course, that's being conservative: conversion will go above the 50% assumption, and some charging will happen at all times of the day, and can be made sensitive to supply, so that peaks at anytime of the day get absorbed by increased PHEV charging. Exactly how much over 30% market share you could reach would require a detailed analysis of wind variance...
AFAIK in France they are rotationally disconnecting some of the nukes at night for maintainance. They are exporting to Switzerland mostly because they can and it is more economical than the maintainance alternative.
Exporting constant stream of power has the advantage of properly utilising the transmission infrastructure. Denmark position is largely unique as it features strong interconnections with the neighboring grids of Germany, Sweden and Norway. Originally these were built not to maintain wind, but to export power from Sweden and Norway to Germany. It is apparent that if it didn't have those it would not be able to reach 20% penetration.
You are underestimating wind's variance, wind output depends on the cube of the wind speed and the result looks pretty much as follows:
Some good readings about the experience of Denmark with wind:
http://www.countryguardian.net/vmason.htm
http://www.windaction.org/documents/8775
Overall Denmark is very bad example for wind generation. It's wind campaign has a clear marketing component of its own industry, and the cost of subsidies is affecting them very badly - its electricity rates are the highest in Europe.
This topic has also been discussed at TOD too:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/31/194053/962
I would not put too much chips on big infrastructure projects to support more wind - especially with deregulation utilities are too cautious for those and there must be a considerable premium to be worth the investment.
I understand your desire for wind to provide more than it currently can, but there is too little in past experience or what we have as realistic options to support this. The studies you linked are in line with this: 20% of peak demand, translating to 12% of generation is a pretty realistic estimate IMO.
I don't have time to say much, but I don't see anything in your last comment which really contradicts what I said. For instance, the chart covers 2 weeks, and the change over time isn't especially different from day/night cycles.
The countryguardian site really isn't credible. I haven't looked at the other.
Might you have the coal data I was asking about?
What do you think of what I said about PHEV/EV's
I had to quote this, because that one dose of irony could eliminate anemia in some small nations.
No, we are all quite aware of this. It is you who fails to realize that, by holding the water behind the dam when the wind is blowing, there is more water there to generate power when the wind is not blowing. If you can shut off the dam's generators 30% of the time because the wind is blowing, you can produce hydropower at an average of (100%/0.7) = 143% of the previous average generation when the wind stops blowing.
This will likely not convince you or end your rants, but I had to put it out as a factual refutation of your position.
It is you who fails to realize that, by holding the water behind the dam when the wind is blowing, there is more water there to generate power when the wind is not blowing
No, it is you who thinks that I don't understand that.
My point from the very beginning was that wind is primarily displacing (or reducing the need for) hydro, not coal - which is exactly what you are telling me and I have been telling too. Hydro as you are aware is primarily used for peaking power, so the baseload requirements remains pretty much the same.
E.ON Netz puts the capacity factor of wind to 7%, dropping to 4% with larger penetration. This is the amount of coal capacity that could be retired each MW of wind installed; yes a certain amount of baseload is preserved because of increased spinning reserve requirements, but this is not very good news both from emission and economical point of view.
Overall I hold on to my point - wind does not reduce the need for baseload coal or nuclear, at least not by a significant amount.
"E.ON Netz puts the capacity factor of wind to 7%, dropping to 4% with larger penetration. This is the amount of coal capacity that could be retired each MW of wind installed"
You mean the capacity credit. The capacity factor for E.on Netz's area is 18%, which means that wind's effective capacity credit is 7/18, or 39% of average output. That's not so bad.
" wind does not reduce the need for baseload coal or nuclear, at least not by a significant amount."
You're confusing fuel consumption with capacity needs: wind is directly displacing coal consumption KWH for KWH. It's also reducing the need for capacity with it's 39% capacity credit, which isn't 100% to be sure, but it's something.
This is not how the grid works; at periods of low demand when the baseload is high, wind indeed is displacing some coal kWhs. The first problem is the quality of this displacement: Coal (or nuclear) working as a spinning reserve which has to be activated frequently is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity. The thermal losses from ramping it up and down are huge, figure some 50% of the fuel consumption of coal operating at full speed.
During times of peak demand wind works relatively well, because it usually works together with hydro or NG, which can be ramped up and down quickly. It is where the bulk of its displacement goes, and explains why the recent wind boom in US goes hand in hand with high NG prices.
The overall effect though is that wind does not scale well in grids without significant NG and hydro resource - and most of the grids worldwide are like that, including US (except some regional markets). This is also forcing countries that depend on coal or their NG depletes to be cautious about wind - like UK for example.
People don't understand these issues and they think a kwth of wind replaces a kwth of coal which is not exactly so.
There are also many other technical issues which are generally externalized to grid operators or other forms of generation - including grid losses or how to provide reactive power to distant wind locations. Overall it remains quite expensive technology, which works well in some locations and energy mixes, but is far from appropriate everywhere. Replacing the role of coal with wind? At this point this is largely theoretical. One of the PDF-s you gave was talking about that in therms of "it would require a paradigm shift". But it also specified the only realistic way to accomplish this paradigm shift at the moment - more Natural Gas. Whether this is realistic or desirable to do in the near future I leave up to you to decide.
I'm also happy we are getting closer to an agreement and I thank you for the polite and constructive level of discussion.
“wind works relatively well ... with ... NG, which... explains why the recent wind boom in US goes hand in hand with high NG prices.”
The recent wind boom was caused by public policy, and started before NG prices spiked, though the spike certainly helped greatly.
“Coal (or nuclear) working as a spinning reserve which has to be activated frequently is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity. The thermal losses from ramping it up and down are huge, figure some 50% of the fuel consumption of coal operating at full speed.”
I can imagine that would be the case during the warmup and cool-down phases, but that assumes cycles of going from zero to peak production for each coal plant, which would be done as a last resort. Instead, a utility system operator would use demand management, export/import to other regions, etc. I wouldn’t expect 0-peak cycles to happen very often - even in France, where they’ve seriously overbuilt nuclear relative to domestic consumption, this doesn’t happen (instead, AFAIK they maintain all of the plants higher on the temperature curve). Have you seen this? Do you have links to discussions? I’d be very curious.
“This is also forcing countries that depend on coal or their NG depletes to be cautions about wind - take UK for example.”
I’d be curious to see your info on this, as I’ve not seen this raised as an important problem for UK wind. The research I’ve seen says that the overall variance of the UK wind resource (for the UK as a whole) isn’t nearly as large as that would suggest. Let’s see...I’ll have to look for the whole UK study. I’ve got at hand the following info: The NGC have stated that 25000MW of capacity would displace the need for 5000MW of other plant:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/Wind_Energy-NovRe...
Certainly, wind works nicely with NG & hydro, and I don’t think it makes much sense to try to push wind much past 30%, but I think you’re overestimating the overall variance of wind, and the ability of demand management to cope with it, expecially as we start to see (in the US) up to 200GW of schedulable charging demand from PHEV/EV’s.
Let me stress the problem of overestimating the overall variance of wind, especially at continental scale. Random variance in any system, where the variables are non-correlated, becomes less important as the system becomes larger: the ratio of variance to average demand goes down quickly. Further, wind farms at continental scale are actually inversely correlated, because wind is a heat transfer from the equator to the poles that is a continual process - locally it looks variable, but it must always continue somewhere.
Now, low night time demand is actually the greatest problem for wind, especially because in most regions wind tends to be a little stronger at night. The 20% of peak demand that is used as a rule of thumb? That comes from the typical ratio of night time to daytime peak demand. Nightime is where you run into insufficient “baseload” demand, which would mean that as wind capacity rose, in effect electricity would start to be wasted, and average KWH costs would rise. In a neat synergy, night time is where PHEV/EV’s will mostly charge.
“I'm also happy we are getting closer to an agreement and I thank you for the polite and constructive level of discussion”
Thanks. I agree.
But upthread, you were talking about wind "displacing" hydro, which is an extremely efficient type of spinning reserve.
You cannot even keep your logic straight. You are either a deranged person or an anti-wind attack dog (perhaps a paid one).
EP, it is again you who can not understand my logic which is very simple:
It is obvious that in a closed system wind will always displace something. My whole point, from the very beginning, was that since wind and coal don't work together well, wind tends to reduce the share of cleaner hydro, rather than that of coal. Existing coal capacity is not retired and the additions of wind eventually go to meeting the overall growth of demand.
If a system lacks hydro or NG introducing wind is hardly an option at all - it would be very inefficient to do so. Denmark uses only 5% of its wind domestically and this is the degree its wind saves it's local FFs. The rest is exported to Norway at dumping prices - and if Norway did not have hydro Denmark's wind would not scale at all.
The bottom line is:
1) In a closed, efficiently operating system wind is limited to the amount of hydro that can back it up and to the amount of infrastructure that supports it.
2) More wind tends to save hydro resources which can be used alternatively, but does not save much on existing FFs and emissions. Therefore wind is not effective as means of reducing GHG emissions (but it can reduce their growth by releasing some hydro, which at least partially would have been otherwise covered by FFs)
3) Saved hydro resources from 2) are most likely to be used to meet growth of demand or for other alternative purposes like irrigation.
Overall there is some credit to wind on FF and GHG reduction front, but it is very far from what they are praising it for.
I won't comment on the adhominem attack (again). It speaks more for you than for me.
“ wind and coal don't work together well”
Could you provide more info on this? I’ve heard it stated before, and yet as I posted before, it doesn’t make sense to me. Heck, coal is used to handle day-night variations of 4:1. For instance, I’m sure that lower boiler temps lower efficiency, but the level of generation during that time would be much lower, so that the reduced efficiency affects many fewer KWH’s, so it isn’t that important.
“In a closed, efficiently operating system wind is limited to the amount of hydro that can back it up and to the amount of infrastructure that supports it.”
This doesn’t make sense to me, for a number of reasons, probably too many to efficiently discuss here. To take one important one, you’re clear that wind does provide some capacity credit, right?
"wind and coal don't work together well"
I have been explaining this all along: wind forces coal to work as spinning reserve, thus wasting fuel both when idling and when ramping up. After the CPP ramps up it is even harder to ramp it down because of thermal inertia so wind gusts end up dumped to neighboring grids. The other option is to reject them altogether.
This is the main reason Alan thinks wind can go to 30% in New Zealand - New Zealand has mostly hydro. But I'm still sceptical, 30% of generation with 25% load factor means wind capacity is 120% of average demand. A can only contemplate how often wind will go over the total demand per day; and absent much pumped storage and where to dump the electricity on these isolated islands I would expect it will simply be rejected. Which is a waste of energy and the 25% load factor would end up looking like 15%.
"I have been explaining this all along: wind forces coal to work as spinning reserve, thus wasting fuel both when idling and when ramping up. After the CPP ramps up it is even harder to ramp it down because of thermal inertia so wind gusts end up dumped to neighboring grids. The other option is to reject them altogether."
Oh, I understand the idea, I just don't see why the problem is that bad. Again, coal is routinely used to handle day-night variations of 4:1, with rates of change comparable to those of wind farm output. I’m sure that lower boiler temps lower efficiency, but for most of the temp curve the effect wouldn’t be great, and the level of generation during periods well down on the temp curve would be much lower, so that the reduced efficiency affects many fewer KWH’s, reducing it's importance.
Do you have any quantitative data on this?
" 30% of generation with 25% load factor means wind capacity is 120% of average demand. "
That overestimates wind variance. For instance, a single turbine will occasionally go to 100% of capacity, but even a moderately large windfarm will very rarely go above 85%, due to the moderating effect of many different turbines under even slightly different wind conditions. Even a relatively small country like NZ will be able to reduce wind variance through geographical diversity (the North & South islands are connected, and I believe there is a decent interconnection with Australia, as well) - I would expect that the maximum production would be more like 70% of nameplate. Also, a 25% load factor is too low for many locations, and much too low for off-shore.
Here’s an interesting effort towards modelling the effects of interconnections on renewables’ utilization:
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/geni/simulation/the-GENI-model....
You need to think a little harder about this. Renewable energy is only wasted if it is not displacing fuel based energy that it might otherwise displace. If your grid is 100% renewable, and you don't use all the generation there is no waste, you just have a comfortable margin. It is a bit like catch-and-release fishing. You are not wasting fish when you do this.
Chris
You would never get financing with catch and release infrastructure development...
"Denmark is not even the best place for it."
Yeah. It's tiny, and it's wind resource is poor. The remarkable thing is that the Danes are so determined to make use of it.
Germany has the same situation. Conversely, the US has an extremely good wind resource, and I think the UK has a pretty good resource as well.
IIRC, Denmark has not been trying to reduce CO2, instead their national goal has been reduction of oil consumption.