Comments on: Windpower: Where Some Greens Go Bad http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html Chronicling and Commenting on Human Progress Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:14:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Erik http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-35744 Erik Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:05:10 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-35744 First of all, great article Anthony. Let me introduce myself. My name is Erik and I´m from Germany. I´m working for a company which is doing the operational and commercial management of wind farms. At present we are supervising 111 wind farms with a total power of 166 MW. I hope for the future, that especially the leading industry nations will set the course on renewable energies, doesn´t matter what kind of. Such countries like the United States have large capabilities for wind as well as for solar power. It would be desirable, that the USA execute a change of image from the world´s largest polluter to a nation which is using renewable energies and enforcing their extension. Presuppose for that is an energy policy which gives inducements for investors, especially planning security and calculable costs. Therefore, the german Renewable Energy Act (Erneubare Energien Gesetz, EEG) is an good example. If there were such terms in every european country, bulks of carbone dioxid could be avoided. For me it is unbelievable why countries like Ireland, Scotland etc. don´t invest in windfarms, particulary in off-shore wind farms. In Germany we would dream of those profits. A growing investment in renewable energies would also be an engine for the national economy. Lets hope that the next decades will be the times of changing. P.S. Please apologize all my linguistic mistakes First of all, great article Anthony.

Let me introduce myself. My name is Erik and I´m from Germany. I´m working for a company which is doing the operational and commercial management of wind farms. At present we are supervising 111 wind farms with a total power of 166 MW.

I hope for the future, that especially the leading industry nations will set the course on renewable energies, doesn´t matter what kind of. Such countries like the United States have large capabilities for wind as well as for solar power. It would be desirable, that the USA execute a change of image from the world´s largest polluter to a nation which is using renewable energies and enforcing their extension.

Presuppose for that is an energy policy which gives inducements for investors, especially planning security and calculable costs.
Therefore, the german Renewable Energy Act (Erneubare Energien Gesetz, EEG) is an good example. If there were such terms in every european country, bulks of carbone dioxid could be avoided.
For me it is unbelievable why countries like Ireland, Scotland etc. don´t invest in windfarms, particulary in off-shore wind farms. In Germany we would dream of those profits.

A growing investment in renewable energies would also be an engine for the national economy.

Lets hope that the next decades will be the times of changing.

P.S. Please apologize all my linguistic mistakes

]]> By: Ben http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-35129 Ben Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:42:25 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-35129 Strange that the whole argument WILL be made to proceed in addressing THE demands that HUMANS put on the Earth's resoures for their OWN (individual) survival/convenience. ANY realistic, BALANCED energy debate must, surely (!?) factor in :'POPULATION PEAK'(even for 'projected calculation purposes' eg: how many wind farms in 2090?).....or are we going to allow ourselves to be blinkered with the 'Gaia Hypothesis'for yet another decade..? The Chinese, projected as they are, to become the greatest polluters of earth's environment in the immediate future at least (pro-)aggressively ADDRESS the IMMEDIATE PROBLEM OF HUMAN SPECIES-overpopulation issue!!! Air movement results from geographic atm.press differences....which result from...(inter alia)yes! 'predictable heating and cooling weather/climate patterns'....which, yes, you guessed it...is what 'we' have detected as THE definitive sign of HUMAN-OVER-HARVESTING ('quality-of-life' as well as 'absolute mass of demanding HUMANS'-> & their unilaterally established, never challenged: 'RIGHTS-of-existence' ) of easy-to-grab resources ['economic growth', civilised world &c]. All wind-power harvesting systems appear to make 'THE' assumption that each individual wind-farm will have a guaranteed 'feedstock' of air movement....'INDEFINTELY'...????There appears to be a loss of THINKING at 'common sense level': you cannot have something for nothing - regardless of how 'economically powerful' you are -if there ISN'T ANYTHING LEFT [ask anyone enduring the 'Winter Hunger of 1944/5', by way of example within recent recall....]. Look forward to a plot of energy consumption by HUMANS, per person, per year and then work out whether 'we' would 'EVER' catch up with 'peak energy needs'. EXPONENTIAL mean more to you???????? Strange that the whole argument WILL be made to proceed in addressing THE demands that HUMANS put on the Earth’s resoures for their OWN (individual) survival/convenience. ANY realistic, BALANCED energy debate must, surely (!?) factor in :’POPULATION PEAK’(even for ‘projected calculation purposes’ eg: how many wind farms in 2090?)…..or are we going to allow ourselves to be blinkered with the ‘Gaia Hypothesis’for yet another decade..?
The Chinese, projected as they are, to become the greatest polluters of earth’s environment in the immediate future at least (pro-)aggressively ADDRESS the IMMEDIATE PROBLEM OF HUMAN SPECIES-overpopulation issue!!!
Air movement results from geographic atm.press differences….which result from…(inter alia)yes! ‘predictable heating and cooling weather/climate patterns’….which, yes, you guessed it…is what ‘we’ have detected as THE definitive sign of HUMAN-OVER-HARVESTING (’quality-of-life’ as well as ‘absolute mass of demanding HUMANS’-> & their unilaterally established, never challenged: ‘RIGHTS-of-existence’ ) of easy-to-grab resources [’economic growth’, civilised world &c]. All wind-power harvesting systems appear to make ‘THE’ assumption that each individual wind-farm will have a guaranteed ‘feedstock’ of air movement….’INDEFINTELY’…????There appears to be a loss of THINKING at ‘common sense level’: you cannot have something for nothing - regardless of how ‘economically powerful’ you are -if there ISN’T ANYTHING LEFT [ask anyone enduring the ‘Winter Hunger of 1944/5′, by way of example within recent recall….].
Look forward to a plot of energy consumption by HUMANS, per person, per year and then work out whether ‘we’ would ‘EVER’ catch up with ‘peak energy needs’. EXPONENTIAL mean more to you????????

]]> By: Thomas http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-33850 Thomas Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:22:19 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-33850 A point that is often over looked in wind energy generation is that ESS(Energy Storage Systems) can be used to level out the MW's produced with wind turbines. It works like this, on windy days excess energy is put into batteries or used to compress air or lift a mass such that there is an energy build up; i.e. the mass lifted with excess energy can later be lowered slowly pulling through a generator and producing power during a dead calm. Using ESS to hold excess electricity adds to the cost of wind generation, but makes it more viable for the environment with no need for coal or nuclear or any other form of power production. As long as the ESS works efficiently then most of the excess power can be reclaimed at a later time. Thus the Base Load of a wind farm with an ESS is the total electricity produced in a year divided by the number of days, to calculate a daily output, minus the inefficientcy of the ESS used. A point that is often over looked in wind energy generation is that ESS(Energy Storage Systems) can be used to level out the MW’s produced with wind turbines. It works like this, on windy days excess energy is put into batteries or used to compress air or lift a mass such that there is an energy build up; i.e. the mass lifted with excess energy can later be lowered slowly pulling through a generator and producing power during a dead calm. Using ESS to hold excess electricity adds to the cost of wind generation, but makes it more viable for the environment with no need for coal or nuclear or any other form of power production. As long as the ESS works efficiently then most of the excess power can be reclaimed at a later time. Thus the Base Load of a wind farm with an ESS is the total electricity produced in a year divided by the number of days, to calculate a daily output, minus the inefficientcy of the ESS used.

]]> By: pieter http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-33344 pieter Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:25:26 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-33344 What I forgot to mention: Windturbines spread over a whole country or even continent are together ofcourse much more reliable than a single windturbine. What I forgot to mention:

Windturbines spread over a whole country or even continent are together ofcourse much more reliable than a single windturbine.

]]> By: pieter http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-33343 pieter Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:15:16 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-33343 Regarding Staceys remark over the reliability . As many people she is confusing the so called Load Factor with the percentual Operational Time. The load factor is the ratio off the actual energy delivered divieded by the energy it delivered if the genorator worked full time worked at full capacity all the time. A typical nuclear powerplant works 70% of the time on full power and stands still 30% of the time for maintanance, emeergency shutdown etc. It has a LF of 70%. In this case the load factor is equal to the percentual operation time. However, a powerplant that works 100% of the time at 70% of its capacity also has a Load Factor of 70%. The Load Factor is therefore not a good measure of reliability. A modern windturbine at a good on-land location can have a Load factor up to 35%, but delivers energy up to 85% of the time. It is therefore muh more reliable than Stacey suggests. If you really want to know what the effect is of the variability in the wind energy production you also need to take the variability of user demand and the unreliability of conventional electricity production (which requires also back-up) into account. A number of in-depth studies on this issue have been carried out, and they all agree that at least 20% of the electricity demand can be provided by wind-energy without the need of large-scale extra back-up. So wind energy is not the total solution, but it is a big part of the solution. Regarding Staceys remark over the reliability .

As many people she is confusing the so called Load Factor with the percentual Operational Time.

The load factor is the ratio off the actual energy delivered divieded by the energy it delivered if the genorator worked full time worked at full capacity all the time.

A typical nuclear powerplant works 70% of the time on full power and stands still 30% of the time for maintanance, emeergency shutdown etc. It has a LF of 70%. In this case the load factor is equal to the percentual operation time.

However, a powerplant that works 100% of the time at 70% of its capacity also has a Load Factor of 70%. The Load Factor is therefore not a good measure of reliability.

A modern windturbine at a good on-land location can have a Load factor up to 35%, but delivers energy up to 85% of the time. It is therefore muh more reliable than Stacey suggests.

If you really want to know what the effect is of the variability in the wind energy production you also need to take the variability of user demand and the unreliability of conventional electricity production (which requires also back-up) into account. A number of in-depth studies on this issue have been carried out, and they all agree that at least 20% of the electricity demand can be provided by wind-energy without the need of large-scale extra back-up.

So wind energy is not the total solution, but it is a big part of the solution.

]]> By: walt kittelberger http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-32589 walt kittelberger Sat, 09 Jun 2007 04:37:00 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-32589 Not that its a big deal but advisary should be replaced by adversary Not that its a big deal but advisary should be replaced by adversary

]]> By: walt kittelberger http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-31221 walt kittelberger Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:16:57 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-31221 I enjoyed your comments. Your observations seem well thought out and only slightly biased. I am in a steep learning curve on the subject of wind power. I am chairmain of a very active regional 501c-3 whose usual advisary is the Corps of Engineers and their harmful dredge disposal practices. THis wind power issue is much more difficult to get a handle on. Most of my usual allies seem to have a different opinion on this subject. Audubon,for instance,support wind power to the extent that they sided with the wind lobby and opposed our efforts to get siting legislation passed recently in Texas. My area of interest is the Laguna Madre of Texas. THe area of a proposed large ((600 Mitsubishi 2.4 MW) is right smack in the middle of one of the if not the busiest migratory paths in North America. Artic Perigrines and all the tasty neo-tropicals they follow each spring and fall. Seems to me the Wind people are really pushing the envelope by locating in tis sensitive area. Could justbe arrogance since they have never felt the sting of defeat in the Lone Star State. Not yet, that is. Thanks, again for your fine article. Please forward any other of your musings on this topic to me por favor. Walt Kittelberger, Chairman Lower Laguna Madre Foundation I enjoyed your comments. Your observations seem well thought out and only slightly biased. I am in a steep learning curve on the subject of wind power. I am chairmain of a very active regional 501c-3 whose usual advisary is the Corps of Engineers and their harmful dredge disposal practices.

THis wind power issue is much more difficult to get a handle on. Most of my usual allies seem to have a different opinion on this subject. Audubon,for instance,support wind power to the extent that they sided with the wind lobby and opposed our efforts to get siting legislation passed recently in Texas.

My area of interest is the Laguna Madre of Texas. THe area of a proposed large ((600 Mitsubishi 2.4 MW) is right smack in the middle of one of the if not the busiest migratory paths in North America. Artic Perigrines and all the tasty neo-tropicals they follow each spring and fall.

Seems to me the Wind people are really pushing the envelope by locating in tis sensitive area. Could justbe arrogance since they have never felt the sting of defeat in the Lone Star State. Not yet, that is.

Thanks, again for your fine article. Please forward any other of your musings on this topic to me por favor.

Walt Kittelberger, Chairman
Lower Laguna Madre Foundation

]]> By: Anthonares » Blog Archive » Friedman’s Latest on Being Geo-Green http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-21808 Anthonares » Blog Archive » Friedman’s Latest on Being Geo-Green Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:01:30 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-21808 [...] April 16th, 2007 by Anthony Kendall [Environmentalism, Friedman, Geo Green]I’ve talked in these pages about Tom Friedman’s Geo-Green ideas before (here, and here), but I’ll summarize it again quickly: geo-green means being green for the sake of national and economic security as much as for traditional environmentalist reasons. For the feature article in Sunday’s NYTimes Magazine, and his longest writing yet on the topic, he stakes out the geo-green position, and calls for serious change at every level of American society. [...] […] April 16th, 2007 by Anthony Kendall [Environmentalism, Friedman, Geo Green]I’ve talked in these pages about Tom Friedman’s Geo-Green ideas before (here, and here), but I’ll summarize it again quickly: geo-green means being green for the sake of national and economic security as much as for traditional environmentalist reasons. For the feature article in Sunday’s NYTimes Magazine, and his longest writing yet on the topic, he stakes out the geo-green position, and calls for serious change at every level of American society. […]

]]> By: Anthony Kendall http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-6120 Anthony Kendall Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:26:23 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-6120 Tracey, First off, I did not mention that windpower is sporadic because that's largely a misconception based on a lack of understanding about how the power grid operates. Windpower distributed regionally through a modern transmission system would be available nearly constantly. When it's not available, then nuclear would certainly be my preferred solution. There are other sources of energy as well that don't involve coal or natural gas, including biomass and solar. Conservationists believe that there is some moral value in not consuming. That's only true in a world of finite resources. The Earth is, in many regards, a finite resource, yet the possibilities for recycling materials, renewing soils, and providing clean renewable energy has been barely tapped. But, we are certainly not to the point of 100% renewable energy and materials recycling, so conserving is a personal and a societal virtue that should certainly be conserved. But the backwards-looking mentality you express by saying energy generation OR conservation is the reason that conservation is stuck where it is. It's time for clean energy generation AND conservation, working towards the goal of a cleaner planet while not ruining the name of greens everywhere. Conservationists have tried damned hard to do that, and so far that's about all they've accomplished. Tracey,
First off, I did not mention that windpower is sporadic because that’s largely a misconception based on a lack of understanding about how the power grid operates. Windpower distributed regionally through a modern transmission system would be available nearly constantly. When it’s not available, then nuclear would certainly be my preferred solution. There are other sources of energy as well that don’t involve coal or natural gas, including biomass and solar.

Conservationists believe that there is some moral value in not consuming. That’s only true in a world of finite resources. The Earth is, in many regards, a finite resource, yet the possibilities for recycling materials, renewing soils, and providing clean renewable energy has been barely tapped.

But, we are certainly not to the point of 100% renewable energy and materials recycling, so conserving is a personal and a societal virtue that should certainly be conserved. But the backwards-looking mentality you express by saying energy generation OR conservation is the reason that conservation is stuck where it is. It’s time for clean energy generation AND conservation, working towards the goal of a cleaner planet while not ruining the name of greens everywhere. Conservationists have tried damned hard to do that, and so far that’s about all they’ve accomplished.

]]> By: Stacey http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-5548 Stacey Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:19:33 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-5548 You fail to mention that windpower is sporadic, and only provides energy to the grid a maximum of 30% of the time. Unfortunately to avoid brownouts and spikes in power levels, backup power plants (nuclear or coal-fired) need to continue production. Thus eliminating much of the supposed value claimed by windpower proponents. Nor have any of the posters questioned your vaunting of windpower as an instrument of reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources (read: oil), when electricity power plants are not powered by oil---therefore nullifying that claim! It's also interesting that your definition of us benighted "conservationalsists" doesn't include a real commitment to actual conservation of natural resources: driving high-mileage vehicles, some powered by biofuels; recycling and composting to limit the amount of waste sent to landfills; living in homes that are designed or renovated to be as energy efficient as possible; using mass transit to its utmost, and other strategies. There may be billions and trillions of generations yet to provide for on our planet, but at what level? Three-quarters or more of the world's populations live on 1/100th of what we in the developed world consume daily. Perhaps we should consider downscaling our wants and expectations as a nation before raping the few rural areas left in the United States? The health of the whole planet depends as much on the vegetation and the waters of these areas as on medical science. As an example, the cities of Los Angeles and New York both depend on water sources many miles away from their overpopulated centers. Industrialization of those areas, whether from windfarms or factories, threatens the quality of the Hudson Valley, the Colorado, the Susquehanna watershed and thus the water sources of many millions of people. How can anyone justify compromising an essential part of the ecosystem by claiming to want to save it? If any government gave out healthy subsidies to private citizens as incentives to conserve, rather than to corporate giants encouraging them to build still more generating facilities, you can bet conservation would be the norm in a majority of households. I think you and your readers have missed a huge part of the equation and need to do more research. You fail to mention that windpower is sporadic, and only provides energy to the grid a maximum of 30% of the time. Unfortunately to avoid brownouts and spikes in power levels, backup power plants (nuclear or coal-fired) need to continue production. Thus eliminating much of the supposed value claimed by windpower proponents. Nor have any of the posters questioned your vaunting of windpower as an instrument of reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources (read: oil), when electricity power plants are not powered by oil—therefore nullifying that claim!

It’s also interesting that your definition of us benighted “conservationalsists” doesn’t include a real commitment to actual conservation of natural resources: driving high-mileage vehicles, some powered by biofuels; recycling and composting to limit the amount of waste sent to landfills; living in homes that are designed or renovated to be as energy efficient as possible; using mass transit to its utmost, and other strategies. There may be billions and trillions of generations yet to provide for on our planet, but at what level? Three-quarters or more of the world’s populations live on 1/100th of what we in the developed world consume daily. Perhaps we should consider downscaling our wants and expectations as a nation before raping the few rural areas left in the United States? The health of the whole planet depends as much on the vegetation and the waters of these areas as on medical science. As an example, the cities of Los Angeles and New York both depend on water sources many miles away from their overpopulated centers. Industrialization of those areas, whether from windfarms or factories, threatens the quality of the Hudson Valley, the Colorado, the Susquehanna watershed and thus the water sources of many millions of people. How can anyone justify compromising an essential part of the ecosystem by claiming to want to save it?

If any government gave out healthy subsidies to private citizens as incentives to conserve, rather than to corporate giants encouraging them to build still more generating facilities, you can bet conservation would be the norm in a majority of households.

I think you and your readers have missed a huge part of the equation and need to do more research.

]]>