So Europe, how's that green energy thing working out?

[flogger]

Flogger always a pleasure, but it's obvious to me that we differ in opinion on such a fundamental level that there seems little point in proceeding.

-Cheers

Likewise csbrown. Its good to see that posters can fundamentally disagree yet stay lucid and amicable about it nonetheless. I would be great if others would learn by your example

rgds

 

[Papa bull]

As I have pointed out... if you take it country by country you'll find different results.

Norway, Iceland, Sweden, etc. all have no such needs for importing coal, and especially not dirty coal from the US. Countries who haven't reached the 40-50% of their green energy needs are indeed requiring to import something to make more energy. And coal is an alternative.

Norway is able to produce 99% of it's electricity from hydro power. Low population density and lots of places to build hydraulic plants makes that possible. Iceland is able to produce 65% of it's needs from Geo-Thermal. Low population density and living on top of a volcano makes that possible. Sweden, again, low population density and lots of hydroelectric possibilities. The more populated countries that aren't built over volcanos or in lands laced with rivers and fjords to be dammed and used for hydroelectric aren't going to be so lucky... not ever. It's easy for a place to have all it's electricity produced by hydro-electric if there aren't many people and there isn't much elecricity use and you live right beside a river capable of providing you hydroelectric power.

 

[Chatter]

Most EU Countries are actually in the process of changing the way their energy is produced, and are examining alternatives such as Carbon Capture, New Nuclear plants, Shale Gas and have where possible increased alternative energy sources. The US has by contrast just gone ahead with fracking something seen as equally environmentally destructive by many.

 

[Ockham]

Norway is able to produce 99% of it's electricity from hydro power. Low population density and lots of places to build hydraulic plants makes that possible. Iceland is able to produce 65% of it's needs from Geo-Thermal. Low population density and living on top of a volcano makes that possible. Sweden, again, low population density and lots of hydroelectric possibilities. The more populated countries that aren't built over volcanos or in lands laced with rivers and fjords to be dammed and used for hydroelectric aren't going to be so lucky... not ever. It's easy for a place to have all it's electricity produced by hydro-electric if there aren't many people and there isn't much elecricity use and you live right beside a river capable of providing you hydroelectric power.

Just to bolster your point ... Norway has a population of 4.7 million people, which is about the same as South Carolina. Iceland has a population of 330 thousand, which is lower than Wyoming and New Hampshire.

 

[Chatter]

Britain has just closed three giant coal power plants and the remaining fleet is under a sentence of death. The cause of death has been well documented: the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD), which forced Europe’s dirtiest power stations to either clean up or shut up. Some 8GW of plants in Britain chose the latter, agreeing to close by 2015 or when they used up an allotted number of operating hours. Kingsnorth, Didcot and Cockenzie ran flat-out on cheap coal to avoid Britain’s new carbon tax, which comes in tomorrow, using up their hours early. The other opted-out plants will go over the next two years. For Peter Atherton, energy analyst at Liberum Capital, the ending for the remaining coal plants under one key current policy seems obvious: they are also under “sentence of death”. A stringent new EU policy, the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), designed to make Europe cleaner and greener, is likely to see them close by 2023 at the latest, he explains. The precise way this works is, to quote one industry expert, “horrendously complicated”. But in crude terms, the IED, like the LCPD before it, will give the coal plants a choice: from 2016 they must either become even cleaner, or opt to limit their running hours while still closing by the early 2020s.

In terms of Britain we are building a new generation of nuclear power plants, are examining fracking as we have substantial shale gas deposits as well as North Sea Gas fields and we are also examining the use of carbon capture technology in terms of the remaining coal fired stations, whilst increasing investment in sustainable energy sources such as wind and wave technology. However energy policy can not be changed over night and many of these objectives are based over the long term.

 

[Papa bull]

Most EU Countries are actually in the process of changing the way their energy is produced, and are examining alternatives such as Carbon Capture, New Nuclear plants, Shale Gas and have where possible increased alternative energy sources. The US has by contrast just gone ahead with fracking something seen as equally environmentally destructive by many.

The "many" that see fracking as equally enviromentally destructive (equal to what?) are mostly knee-jerk environmentalists. Fracking is just an extraction method that, generally speaking, has very little environmental impact. The oil and gas that it produces, however, are still oil and gas. So whatever the environmental cost of using oil and gas may be is still there, of course, but otherwise, the envirnmental cost is very small.

In Ireland, they are still burning heaps of coal and peat in stoves for heat.
Europe will do whatever they have to do to try to stay warm and industrialized and that means burning fossil fuels and/or building more nuclear facilities. Solar power isn't going to get it done. Not even for the Mediterranean countries.

 

[flogger]

Britain has just closed three giant coal power plants and the remaining fleet is under a sentence of death. The cause of death has been well documented: the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD), which forced Europe’s dirtiest power stations to either clean up or shut up. Some 8GW of plants in Britain chose the latter, agreeing to close by 2015 or when they used up an allotted number of operating hours. Kingsnorth, Didcot and Cockenzie ran flat-out on cheap coal to avoid Britain’s new carbon tax, which comes in tomorrow, using up their hours early. The other opted-out plants will go over the next two years. For Peter Atherton, energy analyst at Liberum Capital, the ending for the remaining coal plants under one key current policy seems obvious: they are also under “sentence of death”. A stringent new EU policy, the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), designed to make Europe cleaner and greener, is likely to see them close by 2023 at the latest, he explains. The precise way this works is, to quote one industry expert, “horrendously complicated”. But in crude terms, the IED, like the LCPD before it, will give the coal plants a choice: from 2016 they must either become even cleaner, or opt to limit their running hours while still closing by the early 2020s.

And this is why we are facing potential blackouts . In the UK yesterday we were told our energy prices were to increase another 8.2% making that a nearly 50% rise in our bills since 2009 paying for this green madness

 

[Chatter]

The "many" that see fracking as equally enviromentally destructive (equal to what?) are mostly knee-jerk environmentalists. Fracking is just an extraction method that, generally speaking, has very little environmental impact. The oil and gas that it produces, however, are still oil and gas. So whatever the environmental cost of using oil and gas may be is still there, of course, but otherwise, the envirnmental cost is very small.

I agree Fracking may well be the way forward and what we need is an informed proper debate which examines the scientific evidence rather than misguided protests.

Europe will do whatever they have to do to try to stay warm and industrialized and that means burning fossil fuels and/or building more nuclear facilities. Solar power isn't going to get it done. Not even for the Mediterranean countries.

I agree, however we do need to examine and try to move towards new technology including new nuclear technology, carbon capture technology and indeed examine the possibility of using shale gas.

 

[Chatter]

And this is why we are facing potential blackouts . In the UK yesterday we were told our energy prices were to increase another 8.2% making that a nearly 50% rise in our bills since 2009 paying for this green madness

I think the possibility of black outs is being over played, however the Government has been dragging it's heals for too long and it's time to start on replacement nuclear power stations, carbon capture technology and possible fracking and the extraction of shale gas. At the same time further investment in wind and wave power should also be encouraged, along with other clean power sources. We all know the backbone of our future energy is going to be nuclear and gas so why not just get on with it.

 

[Papa bull]

I agree Fracking may well be the way forward and what we need is an informed proper debate which examines the scientific evidence rather than misguided protests.



I agree, however we do need to examine and try to move towards new technology including new nuclear technology, carbon capture technology and indeed examine the possibility of using shale gas.

I agree with all that except that I'm not sure if the benefits of "carbon capture" technology outweigh the costs, particularly with the fact that the "global warming" hasn't actually been happening for the last 15 or 16 years. I know that the diehard Global Warming believers say that inexplicable deviations from their model like that make sense, but the fact that they're inexplicable means that we still don't know what really makes the climate tick and carbon capture technology is only a benefit if we do, in fact, know what makes the climate tick (and reality vs. models tells us we don't) and that global warming is a severe problem with catastrophic consequences that carbon capture technology will prevent (none of which is at all certain). I suppose if there's no great cost involved, it's still all good, but I think the cost will be prohibitive. It's Europe's choice, of course. It's also their consequences if they get it wrong and artificially inflate the cost of power to the point where they simply can't compete in global markets in anything.

 

[Chatter]

I agree with all that except that I'm not sure if the benefits of "carbon capture" technology outweigh the costs, particularly with the fact that the "global warming" hasn't actually been happening for the last 15 or 16 years. I know that the diehard Global Warming believers say that inexplicable deviations from their model like that make sense, but the fact that they're inexplicable means that we still don't know what really makes the climate tick and carbon capture technology is only a benefit if we do, in fact, know what makes the climate tick (and reality vs. models tells us we don't) and that global warming is a severe problem with catastrophic consequences that carbon capture technology will prevent (none of which is at all certain). I suppose if there's no great cost involved, it's still all good, but I think the cost will be prohibitive. It's Europe's choice, of course. It's also their consequences if they get it wrong and artificially inflate the cost of power to the point where they simply can't compete in global markets in anything.

The reason I am in favour of carbon capture is that it will allow the UK to keep operating some coal fired power stations whilst still adhering to EU Rules and not that I think it's really a long term answer and the same is true in terms of increased gas storage capacity. The truth being that it's going to take a good deal of time to build the planned new nuclear power stations and there is going to have to be a lot of debate with regard to fracking, which has become a controversial issue. At the same time it is unlikely that well meaning wind mills, wave turbines or biomass power plants can reliable solve all our energy needs..

 

[Chatter]

LOL - the UK Government produced this rather embarrassing video, they must think we are all 12 years old. :lol:

 

[Papa bull]

The reason I am in favour of carbon capture is that it will allow the UK to keep operating some coal fired power stations whilst still adhering to EU Rules and not that I think it's really a long term answer and the same is true in terms of increased gas storage capacity. The truth being that it's going to take a good deal of time to build the planned new nuclear power stations and there is going to have to be a lot of debate with regard to fracking, which has become a controversial issue. At the same time it is unlikely that well meaning wind mills, wave turbines or biomass power plants can reliable solve all our energy needs..

If only.... if only... if only.... Nuclear power. That would be a fabulous solution to so many things "if only". The cost, potential danger and storage of waste are the big problems with it. But to me, the good news is that these are problems that we may be able to do something about. I still believe Nuclear Power is the real long-term solution. Long term being more than 100 years from now. It can generate vast amounts of power and unlike every other source of energy, it's not 2nd or 3rd hand atomic energy from the sun; it's atomic energy right from the source. Oil, Gas, Coal, Solar and even hydraulic energy are all actually all a result of atomic energy from the sun stored through various natural means. Nuclear power makes sense because you go right to the source.

The sun's energy is nuclear. Solar energy is what lifts the water from the seas to higher elevations through rain, depositing them to be used in hydroelectric generators as gravity draws the water back to Earth. Coal and gas are also nuclear energy from the sun in the form of radiation, converted by plants and then processed by nature into dense fuel over millions of years. Solar energy even when directly collected and processed by solar panels is very diffuse.

Nuclear power is, for all intents and purposes, harnessing the energy of the sun (nuclear reactions) in the most direct way possible and we're not limited to the ration of the sun's diffuse energy that finds it's way to Earth.

 

[flogger]

LOL - the UK Government produced this rather embarrassing video, they must think we are all 12 years old. :lol:

I cant believe they are still trying to sell this 80% by 2050 CO 2 reduction figure. It came from IPCC AR 4 and has no basis in any science whatsoever and believe me I've checked ! . This simplistic propaganda represents economic suicide and we are all along for the ride judging by yesterdays green price hikes frankly

 

[Chatter]

If only.... if only... if only.... Nuclear power. That would be a fabulous solution to so many things "if only". The cost, potential danger and storage of waste are the big problems with it. But to me, the good news is that these are problems that we may be able to do something about. I still believe Nuclear Power is the real long-term solution. Long term being more than 100 years from now. It can generate vast amounts of power and unlike every other source of energy, it's not 2nd or 3rd hand atomic energy from the sun; it's atomic energy right from the source. Oil, Gas, Coal, Solar and even hydraulic energy are all actually all a result of atomic energy from the sun stored through various natural means. Nuclear power makes sense because you go right to the source.

The sun's energy is nuclear. Solar energy is what lifts the water from the seas to higher elevations through rain, depositing them to be used in hydroelectric generators as gravity draws the water back to Earth. Coal and gas are also nuclear energy from the sun in the form of radiation, converted by plants and then processed by nature into dense fuel over millions of years. Solar energy even when directly collected and processed by solar panels is very diffuse.

Nuclear power is, for all intents and purposes, harnessing the energy of the sun (nuclear reactions) in the most direct way possible and we're not limited to the ration of the sun's diffuse energy that finds it's way to Earth.

Nuclear Energy is becoming much safer, and if we can harness Thorium, then the future could be brighter still

Imagine a safe, clean nuclear reactor that used a fuel that was hugely abundant, produced only minute quantities of radioactive waste and was almost impossible to adapt to make weapons. It sounds too good to be true, but this isn’t science fiction. This is what lies in store if we harness the power of a silvery metal found in river sands, soil and granite rock the world over: thorium.

One ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3.5 million tons of coal, and the thorium deposits that have already been identified would meet the entire world’s energy needs for at least 10,000 years. Unlike uranium, it’s easy and cheap to refine, and it’s far less toxic. Happily, it produces energy without producing any carbon dioxide: so an economy that ran on thorium power would have virtually no carbon footprint.

Better still, a thorium reactor would be incapable of having a meltdown, and would generate only 0.6 per cent of the radioactive waste of a conventional nuclear plant. It could even be adapted to ‘burn’ existing, stockpiled uranium waste in its core, thus enormously reducing its radioactive half-life and toxicity.

Electron Model of Many Applications: Technology which could save the world | Mail Online

 

[Chatter]

I cant believe they are still trying to sell this 80% by 2050 CO 2 reduction figure. It came from IPCC AR 4 and has no basis in any science whatsoever and believe me I've checked ! . This simplistic propaganda represents economic suicide and we are all along for the ride judging by yesterdays green price hikes frankly

It's time for countries to take back power from the EU and I would hope that in the future the EU will go back to being primarily a trading organisation rather than continue as some unaccountable nonsense.

 

[flogger]

It's time for countries to take back power from the EU and I would hope that in the future the EU will go back to being primarily a trading organisation rather than continue as some unaccountable nonsense.

You cant have a one size fits all energy policy. Whats good for Norway like hydro wont be any good for say Poland

 

[csbrown28]

Not specific homes, specific areas and if you take area A wind power and shift it to area B who has lost wind what does area A do?

You and Flogger both seem to be under the impression that alternative sources seek to outright replace fossil fuels. This is either a misunderstanding, or a stubborn refusal to let go of ones opinion to the point of being obtuse. I'm hoping its the former....

There are, what seem to be two arguments against wind as a source of power (I'm making an argument for wind as I see it as one of the most viable short term, i.e. next 20 years, alternatives).

-The first issue is what you and Flogger are calling reliability.

-The second is cost.

--------------------

Let's look at cost first because that is the easiest.....

One of the most significant statistics is that wind cost has reduced in cost 14% for every doubling of capacity for the last 30 years. As I tried to point out to flogger, the costs on wind are still coming down as acceptance rises

The only way to compare apples to apples is to consider the "levelized costs"

"Levelized cost ... represents the per-kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle. Key inputs to calculating levelized costs include overnight capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type/. ... The availability of various incentives, including state or federal tax credits, can also impact the calculation of levelized cost. The values shown in the tables in this discussion do not incorporate any such incentives.

Source: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

The number below are 5 year esitmates....

When considering ALL costs wind is one of the least expensive when built to scale, that is, built to supply across a region and not just locally.

The only source that costs less is NG and there is some debate on those costs are artificially low....

So for every MW produced by wind, it will save money over, coal, oil, nuclear ect...

Certainly create less pollution, upfront costs are much lower and support regional jobs.

The higher costs in other nations can often be attributed to their earlier entry into the market. Windmills made 20 years ago made one fifth the power (600kw) and as such make their electricity at a higher price.

One other point that when looking at a graph of costs gives you nominal numbers that don't account for purchasing power in those nations In other words, Denmark may have the highest cost for electricity, but the purchasing power of it's citizens is much higher. Also, as I've noted there are many other external factors that skew the numbers.

When it comes to Nuclear, all it takes is one Chrenybol or Fukashima every 100 years to make nuclear questionable as an energy source for the future.

------------------------

Addressing what your calling "reliability" (which should really be called indeterminacy), About 25% of the US averages wind speeds high enough to generate power reliably. This doesn't include offshore locations which are generally excellent for making power. Windmills in these areas generate power 65-85% of the time near capacity. Other forms of electricity are intermittent with nuclear it's 85% and coal are about 60-75% for coal (contrary to popular belief coal and nuclear pants often make less then their full capacity). Generally speaking, renewables are more intermittent, but this does absolutely nothing to to discredit their feasibility.

So what happens when the wind stops? Either the slack is picked up by other wind production in other areas of the region, other alternative sources like water, solar, geo, tidal or traditional sources, coal, nuclear, gas ect make up the difference.

So where is the advantage? Every MW of power made by wind offsets a MW made by sources that cannot be renewed and generally cost more. Large scale modern wind farms make electricity for about 5-7 cents per KWh, bringing down the cost of electricity and prolonging the length of time non-renewables will be around at affordable costs.

 

[flogger]

You and Flogger both seem to be under the impression that alternative sources seek to outright replace fossil fuels. This is either a misunderstanding, or a stubborn refusal to let go of ones opinion to the point of being obtuse. I'm hoping its the former....

And you seem to miss the point that there is no existential reason to introduce them at all ?

There are, what seem to be two arguments against wind as a source of power (I'm making an argument for wind as I see it as one of the most viable short term, i.e. next 20 years, alternatives).

Why introduce it at all when it has never been economically viable and requires costly replication of a diffuse power generation and transmission infrastructure

Let's look at cost first because that is the easiest.....

One of the most significant statistics is that wind cost has reduced in cost 14% for every doubling of capacity for the last 30 years. As I tried to point out to flogger, the costs on wind are still coming down as acceptance rises.The only way to compare apples to apples is to consider the "levelized costs" The number below are 5 year esitmates....

When considering ALL costs wind is one of the least expensive when built to scale, that is, built to supply across a region and not just locally

This is demonstrably nonsense. Per capita Denmark has the most long term well established and comprehensive wind generation infrastructure on Earth and for its sins now has the highest energy tariffs on Earth too so that argument wont wash. They have paid their startup ,infrastructure replication and modernisation costs long ago yet its still an economic white elephant that nobody in their right mind would want to replicate. Its a whole load of pie in the sky frankly

Generally speaking, renewables are more intermittent, but this does absolutely nothing to to discredit their feasibility

Of course it does

So what happens when the wind stops? Either the slack is picked up by other wind production in other areas of the region, other alternative sources like water, solar, geo, tidal or traditional sources, coal, nuclear, gas ect make up the difference.

Thats a whole massive cost of infrastructure replication there when such multi billion dollar outlays cannot be justified in any concievable way

So where is the advantage? Every MW of power made by wind offsets a MW made by sources that cannot be renewed and generally cost more. Large scale modern wind farms make electricity for about 5-7 cents per KWh, bringing down the cost of electricity and prolonging the length of time non-renewables will be around at affordable costs

Thats certainly not been our experience in the UK

Wind power has failed to deliver what it promised - Telegraph

 

[csbrown28]

And you seem to miss the point that there is no existential reason to introduce them at all ?

To save money....Seems like a good goal to me. And like most emerging technologies on this scale, it won't happen overnight.



Why introduce it at all when it has never been economically viable and requires costly replication of a diffuse power generation and transmission infrastructure

This is demonstrably nonsense. Per capita Denmark has the most long term well established and comprehensive wind generation infrastructure on Earth and for its sins now has the highest energy tariffs on Earth too so that argument wont wash. They have paid their startup ,infrastructure replication and modernisation costs long ago yet its still an economic white elephant that nobody in their right mind would want to replicate. Its a whole load of pie in the sky frankly

Another person who looks at an issue with thousands of variables and assumes that because there is some correlation that they can draw conclusions based on those correlation without knowing exactly why that correlation exists. Truth is I don't know all of the variables and frankly, while the news on Denmark should be understood, it should also be understood that whatever circumstances put Denmark in the position it's in don't necessarly apply here.

View attachment 67154981


Of course it does

Thats a whole massive cost of infrastructure replication there when such multi billion dollar outlays cannot be justified in any concievable way

What "massive" costs? Put those costs into perspective and leverage those costs across industries....

Thats certainly not been our experience in the UK

Wind Innovations Drive Down Costs, Stock Prices - Bloomberg

Guess it depends on who you ask....

Wind Innovations Drive Down Costs, Stock Prices - Bloomberg

The article seems to address the issue of jobs as it's focus. Frankly I don't expect that wind will be a cash cow that people ride. The fact that it takes fewer people to maintain these things is reflected in it's lower cost and is a positive, not negative.

As far as wildlife, let's put things in perspective, shall we;

HowStuffWorks "Do wind turbines kill birds?"

Eyesore, perhaps, but so are cell phone towers...Can't swing a dead cat without hitting one of those....

 

[flogger]

To save money....Seems like a good goal to me. And like most emerging technologies on this scale, it won't happen overnight.

Can you cite an example of when this has ever happened ? I'm currently paying 50% more for my energy than I was in 2009 underwriting this nonsense

Wind, solar and energy et al are not affordable or sustainable.

Renewable energy schemes can no longer be justified by claims that we are rapidly running out of fossil fuels or causing dangerous manmade global warming. Oil sands and hydraulic fracturing have obliterated the depletion myth, while climate change fears are belied by a 16-year hiatus from planetary warming, historic lows in hurricane and tornado activity, and the abject failure of CO2-focused climate computer models.

In other words, the craze for renewables is driven by religious zeal, not science or economics.

Another person who looks at an issue with thousands of variables and assumes that because there is some correlation that they can draw conclusions based on those correlation without knowing exactly why that correlation exists. Truth is I don't know all of the variables and frankly, while the news on Denmark should be understood, it should also be understood that whatever circumstances put Denmark in the position it's in don't necessarly apply here.

Or maybe they do because Germanys prices arent far behind Denmarks. Germany is another country starting to regret this too.

Germany's wind power chaos should be a warning to the UK - Telegraph

What "massive" costs? Put those costs into perspective and leverage those costs across industries....

You dont think the duplication of energy transmission infrastructure when you do not need to represents a massive cost ? Capturing, converting and transmitting energy from any source requires an infrastructure – which involves construction, maintenance and eventual replacement, all of which require land disturbance, raw materials extraction and processing, energy and investment. There is no pure fountain from which to drink – only limited options, each with its own upsides and downsides. However, those who champion renewables have consistently misrepresented the human, environmental, capital, manufacturing and maintenance costs of providing reliable, affordable energy in sufficient quantities to power a modern economy and maintain desired living standards.

Guess it depends on who you ask....

Yes it does. Beware the power of green corporatism in our media. My skyrocketing bills tell me all I need to know about the UKs economic madness here. Believe me you dont want this puppy in your home

The article seems to address the issue of jobs as it's focus. Frankly I don't expect that wind will be a cash cow that people ride. The fact that it takes fewer people to maintain these things is reflected in it's lower cost and is a positive, not negative.

The reverse has always been true to date According to a recent Liberum Capital report, more than £160 billion needs to be invested in our energy sector by 2020 if the current policies remain in place. Another £215 billion will then be needed by 2030. Without government green policy only £71 billion would be needed this decade and less than £80 billion in the following decade. You asked for massive cost well you got it

Energy special: The green jobs myth » The Spectator

As far as wildlife, let's put things in perspective, shall we;

HowStuffWorks "Do wind turbines kill birds?"

The wildlife dynamic is something I'm indifferent about. Though I will say tearing up our most beautiful environments in order to save them is a green rationale lost on me.

 

[Visbek]

Can you cite an example of when this has ever happened ? I'm currently paying 50% more for my energy than I was in 2009 underwriting this nonsense

News flash! The increase in energy costs since 2009 is not 100% attributable to investment in renewable energy. That's just absurd. I mean, really, is the cost of crude now pegged to the manufacture of windmills now?

In addition, European nations have been taxing energy supplies and fuels for years at very high rates. Those tax revenues go into general funds, and are not specifically earmarked for developing renewable energy. Even if they cancelled every single renewable development, those taxes would almost certainly remain in place.

Wind, solar and energy et al are not affordable or sustainable.

They are currently more expensive. There is no guarantee that this will always be the case, especially since global demand for those resources is on the rise. Or are fossil fuels somehow immune to the basic principle that increases in demand result in increases in price?

Deutsche Bank seems to think solar will soon be sustainable. Global Solar Hits Parity Next Year, No Subsidies Needed

And those decades of making solar panels seems to have worked out, in terms of reducing cost:

Oil sands and hydraulic fracturing have obliterated the depletion myth

Or not. Those resources are still finite; capturing those natural resources is more expensive than traditional methods; and again, demand is increasing, which accelerates the rate of consumption of these finite resources. We may not run out of fossil fuels the time scale predicted by some pessimist peak types, but it certainly hasn't produced an unlimited supply.

while climate change fears are belied by a 16-year hiatus from planetary warming, historic lows in hurricane and tornado activity, and the abject failure of CO2-focused climate computer models.

No, it really isn't. This isn't the thread to discuss it. But those of us who accept the facts realize that we do, in fact, have to take steps now to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Fossil fuels also produce a lot of other types of pollution, both in the mining/drilling processes, refinement and/or power generation. Windmills don't require a dangerous mining infrastructure, and don't result in epic spills that wreck ecosystems.

You dont think the duplication of energy transmission infrastructure when you do not need to represents a massive cost ? Capturing, converting and transmitting energy from any source requires an infrastructure....

Renewable uses the same power grid; we're going to need that anyway. Transporting fossil fuels requires its own infrastructure, such as pipelines and refineries, and these don't last forever. There's a lot of aging fossil fuel power plants out there.

 

[csbrown28]

Can you cite an example of when this has ever happened ? I'm currently paying 50% more for my energy than I was in 2009 underwriting this nonsense

These are policy issues. The fact is that power from a wind farm in the large scale can be produced for less than virtually any other source. If your paying more, that sounds like bureaucracy or a an attempt by competition to influence decisions so that people like you dislike it.

You really don't think one of the most profitable industries in the world doesn't see the threat of wind energy? You really can't imagine a world where the trillions in profits made from fossil fuels could be used to influence politics? Don't be so naive.

Having said that, I've already shown you that the prices are still coming down, output and efficiency are rising. Much of that taking place in just the last few years. Countries that invested 10, 15 20 years ago have infrastructure that is less capable then if you started fresh today. That's one of the penalties of jumping on the bandwagon too early. We suffered the same problem with cell phones in the US.

Read the first paragraph and you'll see my claim is substantiated. Trends influencing the costs of wind power

This is from the same page the info-graphic showing the high costs that you and saywer are posing. It shows that when purchasing power is added to the equation, that things aren't quite as bad:

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/electricppp.gif

Wind, solar and energy et al are not affordable or sustainable.

I disagree as far as wind is concerned and I've already shown evidence to why this is so. As I said before we can just agree to disagree on this point. There is more than one type of solar, but by and large solar needs more study and we're a long way from commercial viability, so to some extent I agree. Tidal, hydro, and geo are all viable, but all of these technologies are very limited by location.

Renewable energy schemes can no longer be justified by claims that we are rapidly running out of fossil fuels or causing dangerous manmade global warming. Oil sands and hydraulic fracturing have obliterated the depletion myth, while climate change fears are belied by a 16-year hiatus from planetary warming, historic lows in hurricane and tornado activity, and the abject failure of CO2-focused climate computer models.

I never claimed, nor do I believe that we are running out of fossil fuels, but as I told sawyer, that's not the only issue. As the population increases and 3rd world nations like China and India modernize, this will place increased demand on those resources which, as I believe has already been pointed out, have risen in cost over 100% in the last decade. Not to mention the volatility in the parts of the world where most of the low cost fossil fuels come from. Developing energy sources that aren't depending on the global political climate is a definite positive.

As far as global warming, point me to a global warming debate thread and we can argue that point there, but I think your wrong. There is lots of evidence to global warming, even without computer models. The fact that you point to claimed 16 year hiatus in temperature just tells me that you read more blogs on the subject and don't really understand the science, but again, if you really want to belabor this point, I'm game, at least for a few posts, but lets do it in another thread. You pick and I'll meet you there.

In other words, the craze for renewables is driven by religious zeal, not science or economics.

Germany's wind power chaos should be a warning to the UK - Telegraph

Let me be the first to admit that there is a lot of unrealistic zeal. If the zealots scream loud enough and they have enough influence, then promises get made that can't be fulfilled undermining an other words viable long term solution. In the long term these kinds of people *cough* Al Gore *cough*, are in it for the attention and power and, imo, while they are supporting good ideas, they disseminate misinformation with the rational that the ends always justify the means, that only hurts the very movements they claim to support and as a result I'm happy to call out pin heads like Gore.

Or maybe they do because Germanys prices arent far behind Denmarks. Germany is another country starting to regret this too.

Again: Trends influencing the costs of wind power

Now let's move to Christopher Booker, the man that wrote the article you cite....

He is educated in history, not science.

He believes in intelligent design.

He doesn't believe that second hand smoke or asbestos are problems and of course climate change.

He is a conservative writing for a conservative paper, clearly has an agenda and no scientific background...Sorry, no credibility.

Christopher Booker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You dont think the duplication of energy transmission infrastructure when you do not need to represents a massive cost ? Capturing, converting and transmitting energy from any source requires an infrastructure – which involves construction, maintenance and eventual replacement, all of which require land disturbance, raw materials extraction and processing, energy and investment. There is no pure fountain from which to drink – only limited options, each with its own upsides and downsides. However, those who champion renewables have consistently misrepresented the human, environmental, capital, manufacturing and maintenance costs of providing reliable, affordable energy in sufficient quantities to power a modern economy and maintain desired living standards.

Yes because the energy that comes from a windmill is somehow different from energy made from traditional sources. :roll:

Look, sarcasm aside, there is no need to run duplicate lines. There are many cases where current lines cannot sustain the power of newly installed windmills. This requires upgrading current infrastructure. These costs will vary widely based on regional management of power infrastructure over time.

Perfect example: Inadequate transmission lines keeping some Maine wind power off the grid | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

While you are correct that there are infrastructure costs, this is the same problem that every country on earth faced when moving to cell phone, or from steam to diesel locomotives, or when we installed a network of gas stations or pipelines to move fuel around the country. Yes it's new technology, it has costs, they will be higher at first and will decline over time to the point that costs will decrease relative to what you pay today.

If that doesn't happen where you live, you have a policy problem. It is possible to take a good idea and mismanage it.

Yes it does. Beware the power of green corporatism in our media. My skyrocketing bills tell me all I need to know about the UKs economic madness here. Believe me you dont want this puppy in your home

/sarcasm on. Yes we should all judge the feasbility of wind power based on your electric bill. /sarcasm off

The reverse has always been true to date According to a recent Liberum Capital report, more than £160 billion needs to be invested in our energy sector by 2020 if the current policies remain in place. Another £215 billion will then be needed by 2030. Without government green policy only £71 billion would be needed this decade and less than £80 billion in the following decade. You asked for massive cost well you got it

Energy special: The green jobs myth » The Spectator

And one again, there are lots of costs hidden in those numbers.

The wildlife dynamic is something I'm indifferent about. Though I will say tearing up our most beautiful environments in order to save them is a green rationale lost on me.

View attachment 67154990

Change is difficult

And yes, this is so much prettier.....

Course there are the intangibles...

Colossal wind failure

Colossal fossil fuel failure

Nuclear failure
(exceeded pic limit)

Chernobyl disaster 25th anniversary - The Big Picture - Boston.com

Inside Fukushima | Reuters.com

Three Mile Island: The Rest of the Story...

The Tragedy of the Love Canal • Damn Interesting

How much do these failures cost taxpayers in fees you'll never see? I mean it's not like US taxpayers get a bill in the mail for their share of the BP oil spill.....So when your calculating costs, these are rarely if ever reported as part of the cost.

 

[rjay]

The point you are trying so hard to ignore is that Europe's commitment to green energy has not panned out. Even though they have spent twice as much on it that the US they are still using old reliable "dirty" coal. Their commitment to green is literally going up in smoke. All they have done is wasted tax dollars with this left wing AGW agenda and driven up the price of what should be relatively cheap energy. Do we really want to follow them down that path?

Are you saying Europe's use of coal is increasing, decreasing or unchanged since the move to greener energy sources? Or are you saying Europe is not 100% green? I am not getting the point of this thread.

 

[Rainman05]

Are you saying Europe's use of coal is increasing, decreasing or unchanged since the move to greener energy sources? Or are you saying Europe is not 100% green? I am not getting the point of this thread.

He is saying both.

And they're true.
Europe's green energy is not 100% and the coal consumption has increased in some countries... decreased in others.
The advantage is that the EU countries have maintained a steady energy consumption in the past 10 years... steady but with a small increase and fluctuation, but no dramatic rise. This is because of energy efficiency standards that have been put in place. without these energy efficiency standards, energy consumption would have risen dramatically.

Coal is cheap. Going for green energy is more expensive. Cheaper coal to offset the investment in green energy seems a good idea for a limited time 4-6 years, while the green energy infrastructure is being built. Otherwise it would cost more money and EU countries who need to really go for an improvement will have to spend a lot more money... maybe borrow some... and debt is not our friend.