It is a simple concept that if wind energy is pushed into the electrical grid, then electricity from another source must be reduced. Wind industry promoters ignore the many factors that complicate the concept and claim that wind-generated electricity equals an equivalent reduction of the displaced source's fuel use.
They ignore the fuel used if a source is simply switched to standby, extra fuel used in ramping up and down in response to wind, and extra fuel burned when a plant operates at lower efficiency because of wind.
They also ignore the significant line loss in transporting wind energy from the remote locations where sprawling facilities are possible. And they ignore the likelihood that in large grid systems, the unpredictable and highly variable wind production is small enough to be simply ignored -- tolerated as a slight rise in line voltage -- especially in the remote areas where wind energy facilities are typically sited -- and allowed to dissipate as heat.
Skeptics point to these factors to try to explain the utter lack of data showing actual reductions of other fuels due to wind on the grid.
But at last -- with no help from wind promoters -- I have found some evidence of fuel savings in a closed island system, where the effect of wind would be most clearly seen.
According to the 2007 issue 4 of Wind Blatt, the Enercon magazine for wind energy, three Enercon E-33/330 kW wind turbines were installed at Sand Bay on East Falkland (Islas Malvinas), where they were expected to provide 20% of the electricity and thus projected to reduce fuel use at the island's diesel-fired plant by 20%. The diesel plant was burning about 4,000,000 liters per year, or about 11,000 liters per day. It provided a maximum load of 3.2 MW in winter and a minimum load of 1.1 MW in summer, with a total annual production of 15,000 MWh (average load 1.7 MW).
In other cases, that's usually the last one reads about fuel savings, but in this case there is a brief follow-up report with actual data.
According to the Falklands government, the wind turbines were officially opened June 29, 2007. On Sept. 20, 2007, they noted that the Sand Bay wind turbines were saving 800-1,000 liters of diesel fuel per day. Wind energy was providing 23% of the electricity at night and 13% during the day (an average of 18%).
But 900 liters is only 8.2% of the previous annual daily fuel use of 11,000 liters. And it is only 4.3% of the daily winter fuel use.
From this admittedly scant information, it appears that although these fast-responding diesel generators may generate 18% less electricity because of wind, they burn only 4-8% less fuel.
Using the winter estimates (the Falklands are in the southern hemisphere), that's a savings of less than one-fourth the amount projected.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
January 28, 2008
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
Mark Bittman writes in the "Week in Review", New York Times, Sunday, Jan. 29 (click the title of this post for the complete article):
Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States. ...
If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.
environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism
Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States. ...
If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.
environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism
January 24, 2008
Tell Congress NOT to extend wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC)
Click here (or the title of this post) to use an automatic form to write your members of Congress. Change the content provided in that form to the text below (or something of your own).
DO NOT Extend the renewable energy Production Tax Credit
Wind energy facilities currently benefit from having up to 75% of their capital value paid for by taxpayers through not only the 10-year Production Tax Credit, but also 5-year double-declining balance accelerated depreciation, a variety of grants and other incentives, and state and municipal tax breaks. In addition to selling electricity, they are able to sell "renewable energy credits" to further increase their profits.
These facilities are usually developed by developers funded by private investors, increasingly from other countries, who more than welcome such largesse with the public's money. In fact, they clamor for it, pretending it is necessary to their success and that their interests is purely beneficial to all.
Besides the obvious unfairness of this funding, wherever giant wind facilities are constructed, the public has complained of serious ill effects, from loss of natural views, environmental harm, and adverse effects on wildlife and even human health.
DO NOT Extend the renewable energy Production Tax Credit.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
DO NOT Extend the renewable energy Production Tax Credit
Wind energy facilities currently benefit from having up to 75% of their capital value paid for by taxpayers through not only the 10-year Production Tax Credit, but also 5-year double-declining balance accelerated depreciation, a variety of grants and other incentives, and state and municipal tax breaks. In addition to selling electricity, they are able to sell "renewable energy credits" to further increase their profits.
These facilities are usually developed by developers funded by private investors, increasingly from other countries, who more than welcome such largesse with the public's money. In fact, they clamor for it, pretending it is necessary to their success and that their interests is purely beneficial to all.
Besides the obvious unfairness of this funding, wherever giant wind facilities are constructed, the public has complained of serious ill effects, from loss of natural views, environmental harm, and adverse effects on wildlife and even human health.
DO NOT Extend the renewable energy Production Tax Credit.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
Billiary
[Hillary Clinton] is predicting that electing her Democratic rival, Barack Obama, will invite a terror attack because he has less experience than she has. If you wonder if you've heard that kind of argument before, you have. It has been a staple of hardball Republican politics for the past seven years: vote for the Democrats and the terrorists win.
But Clinton deftly purloined it for her own purposes, pivoting a classic Karl Rove tactic against one of her opponents ... Ever since the Clintons' near-death experience in the Iowa vote, their campaign has been playing a very Rovian game. The use of the politics of fear is just the start. In fact classic Rovian tactics are now at the heart of the Clinton campaign.
First, play to your base. Obama continues to appeal beyond core Democrats to independents and even a surprising number of disenchanted Republicans. Clinton decided, in response, to craft her appeal directly to core Democrats: public sector employees, the elderly, working women, the urban middle class. . .
Second, attack your opponent on his strong point ... Obama's biggest strength among Democrats is his early and clear opposition to the Iraq war. And so, following Rove's golden rule, Bill Clinton dismissed Obama's long opposition to the war as a "fairy tale". Because in 2004 Obama had refrained from criticising Kerry's pro-war vote, Clinton argued that Obama implicitly agreed with it. Because he had voted - like so many others - to continue funding the troops, Obama was no different than Hillary. It didn't work. But it was a classic Rove try.
Third, wedge issues. Rove's classic example was same-sex marriage; a way to pit one largely Democratic constituency - gays - against others, namely socially conservative white ethnics and blacks. Hillary Clinton's task in a Democratic primary is much trickier. But gender and race remain potent political tools for the unscrupulous. And she has used both.
But Clinton deftly purloined it for her own purposes, pivoting a classic Karl Rove tactic against one of her opponents ... Ever since the Clintons' near-death experience in the Iowa vote, their campaign has been playing a very Rovian game. The use of the politics of fear is just the start. In fact classic Rovian tactics are now at the heart of the Clinton campaign.
First, play to your base. Obama continues to appeal beyond core Democrats to independents and even a surprising number of disenchanted Republicans. Clinton decided, in response, to craft her appeal directly to core Democrats: public sector employees, the elderly, working women, the urban middle class. . .
Second, attack your opponent on his strong point ... Obama's biggest strength among Democrats is his early and clear opposition to the Iraq war. And so, following Rove's golden rule, Bill Clinton dismissed Obama's long opposition to the war as a "fairy tale". Because in 2004 Obama had refrained from criticising Kerry's pro-war vote, Clinton argued that Obama implicitly agreed with it. Because he had voted - like so many others - to continue funding the troops, Obama was no different than Hillary. It didn't work. But it was a classic Rove try.
Third, wedge issues. Rove's classic example was same-sex marriage; a way to pit one largely Democratic constituency - gays - against others, namely socially conservative white ethnics and blacks. Hillary Clinton's task in a Democratic primary is much trickier. But gender and race remain potent political tools for the unscrupulous. And she has used both.
Andrew Sullivan, Times, U.K.
January 17, 2008
Clarity from Greenpeace U.K.
From the Greenpeace e-bulletin, Jan. 17, 2008:
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Electricity is not the same as energy. The majority of our energy demandLet us hope such a clear view about nuclear power as "practically irrelevant" in fighting global warming extends to industrial wind power, which is even more so.
is for heat and transport. While nuclear power currently accounts for
about a fifth of our electricity generation, that is less than 4% of our
total energy demand.
86% of our oil and gas consumption is used for purposes other than
electricity. Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water, or for
industrial purposes. Virtually all oil is used for transport. In this
instance, new nuclear power - which can only generate electricity - is
practically irrelevant.
There are real solutions though.
The real solutions to the energy gap and climate change are available
now. Energy efficiency, cleaner use of fossil fuels, renewables and
state of the art decentralised power stations like they have in
Scandinavia.
We can also decrease our oil dependence by improving vehicle efficiency,
public transport systems and reducing the need to travel, especially for
business by using new technology like video conferencing.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
January 11, 2008
Exit polls in New Hampshire gave clear lead to Obama
According to Chris Matthews on Hardball, the exit polls (which the public is no longer allowed to see) Tuesday evening showed a clear win for Barack Obama in New Hampshire's Democratic primary. (See earlier post about the possibility of vote-counting fraud.)
From the streets of Cleveland, Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich has called for a recount. The mainstream media scoffs, but such a blatant discrepancy between the exit polls and the results ought to make a recount automatic in a democracy. It's precisely the situation that sparked the "orange revolution" in the Ukraine and new elections there.
Click the title of this post for much more coverage of this issue from Brad Friedman.
From the streets of Cleveland, Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich has called for a recount. The mainstream media scoffs, but such a blatant discrepancy between the exit polls and the results ought to make a recount automatic in a democracy. It's precisely the situation that sparked the "orange revolution" in the Ukraine and new elections there.
Click the title of this post for much more coverage of this issue from Brad Friedman.
Were the polls really wrong about Obama in New Hampshire?
In my experience, polls are disturbingly accurate. My first thought about the early call in New Hampshire for McCain and the lack of a similar call on the Democratic side was that the early results in the latter were in clear conflict with the exit poll information. And when that happens, fraud must be considered. Ben Moseley writes:
And anyone who notes that it's Republican operatives that control the Diebold machines need only remember that it is very much in the interest of the Republicans to have Clinton as the Democratic nominee. She is not only quite defeatable as a divisive candidate with a ton of baggage, she is also pretty much Republican anyway.
I ... put together a spreadsheet of the Democratic results of the NH primary for each town with almost all but a few towns reporting ...Complete data are available at www.checkthevotes.com. An analysis showing that the Diebold difference could in fact simply be an urban/rural difference is available at drunkardslamppost.wordpress.com (although that does not answer why the vote differed so from the polls.
What the informal statistics show is that Hillary Clinton received a 4.5% boost [from the poll numbers] in towns using Diebold counting machines compared with towns that didn't. Cnversely, Obama ... showed a 2.5% decrease [from the poll numbers] in the Diebold towns. ... [Boost and decrease from what?]
The possibility of election fraud is important to consider because of the predictions heading into NH primaries. All the polls were showing Obama with at least a 7 point lead over Clinton, with a few showing a double-digit lead, which is no surprise considering Obama's win in Iowa over Clinton, who placed third in the caucuses.
Update I: Some more statistics from the data show that Obama in non-Diebold towns garnered 38.7% of the vote to Clinton's 36.2%. The results in Diebold towns show the exact opposite: Clinton with 40.7% of the vote and Obama with 36.2%. Not only are the positions swapped but the informal statistics have the second place candidate holding 36.2% in both cases, which may or may not be purely coincidence. ...
Update II: Another thing to notice is that the Diebold machines returned a 7-point difference (+4.5 for Clinton, -2.5 for Obama) which is exactly what the polls had been predicting [except in favor of Obama].
And anyone who notes that it's Republican operatives that control the Diebold machines need only remember that it is very much in the interest of the Republicans to have Clinton as the Democratic nominee. She is not only quite defeatable as a divisive candidate with a ton of baggage, she is also pretty much Republican anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)