However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to be — the reality is even worse

Två utmärkta artiklar om det mycket dyra, subventionerade och kompletta vansinnet med att ”förlita” sig på vindkraften som en ”säker” energikälla.

Eller vad sägs om följande exempel från de svenska vindkraftverken den senaste månaden:

EN MINSKNING AV DEN SAMLADE EFFEKTEN MED 84 %2 DAGAR (22-24/12)

EN MINSKNING AV DEN SAMLADE EFFEKTEN MED 67 %1 DAG (10/12)

EN MINSKNING AV DEN SAMLADE EFFEKTEN MED 50 %1 DAG (11/12)

EN MINSKNING AV DEN SAMLADE EFFEKTEN MED 87 %3 DAGAR (27-30/11)

Är det inte fantastiskt att det är detta MYCKET DYRA, OSÄKRA och MYCKET SUBVENTIONERADE energislag som skall ”rädda” vår energiförsörjning.

Se även mina inlägg: Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 7Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 6Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 5Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 4Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 3Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 2Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effektThe Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power!Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion?All You Need To Know about Denmark and Wind PowerWho knew a ”free” source of energy – Wind Power could be so expensive?Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power!Carbon Credits Fund Broken Turbine

Artikel här

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/01/05/more-on-the-high-cost-and-limited-return-of-wind-power/

January 5, 2009 • Ontario, Opinions

More on the high cost and limited return of wind power

My column in the National Post about Ontario’s irrational windpower policy has elicited an electric surge of very interesting responses.

The general conclusion: However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to be – the reality is even worse. Some samples:

From Doug Gallagher in Toronto:

I worked for 10 years in the nuclear power industry in Ontario. I also understand how wind mills work, and how inefficient they really are.

Power levels for wind mills reported in the media are invariably peak power levels, and not average power levels. Typically, the average power out of a windmill is about 20% of peak power. The wind mill on the CNE grounds is rated at 750 kwh, so average power would be around 150 kwh, or about 108,000,000 kw per month assuming enough wind to power it 24 hours a day. The average house in Toronto uses about 1,000 kwh per month, or 12,000 kwh per year. That works out to enough power for about 108,000 households from the windmill at the CNE – theoretically. Many times while walking at the water’s edge in south Etobicoke I have seen the CNE windmill stalk-still. 0 watts output.

The larger issue with power generation in Ontario is that it is government owned with the ensuing inefficiencies. I saw this first-hand will working with the former Ontario Hydro. Undoubtedly power generation costs are subsidized and the price of hydro is held artificially low. This as you point out is for political reasons. Technical decisions made by non-technical people for political reasons guarantees a bad outcome.

In California, when they were facing rotating blackouts, and brownouts, Gov. Arnie solved the problem overnight by increasing the cost of hydro to 17 cents per kwh, as opposed to the 5.6 cents per kwh Ontario now charges. Demand plummeted, and supply became ample enough to allow time to build more capacity.

Supply and demand works every time.

Windmills are a legacy of the Middle Ages. Going that route means we will have power when the wind blows, and not when we need it. Clean coal and natural gas fired generators will provide power when we need it, cost effectively.

Raising the cost of hydro to the true cost of generation would also ensure we waste much less of it.

From a member of the Ontario provincial parliament:

At the present time OPG [Ontario Power Generation, the provincially owned power monopoly] is compelled to pay $0.42 per kilowatt hour for wind & solar energy which they then resell at $0.05 for a loss of $0.37. In addition there are significant capital grants available for wind farms through various government renewable energy programs.

From another reader:

During the 1950’s I worked for Ontario Hydro in Mechanical Maintenance of generating stations. Even then we found that we could not afford to keep small stations manned, because of the labour costs.  All wind turbines are tiny power contributors, even when running, and no one seems to have taken into account that they will need to be maintained. When you look at the huge costs involved in putting them up, and then think about replacing a bearing, the original capital cost is insignificant. I predict that in a few years many of these will be abandoned, as the maintenance costs are unaffordable.

David Frum’s Diary appears in National Review Online

 Och här:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/02/david-frum-shut-up-and-pay-for-your-windmill.aspx

David Frum: Shut up and pay for your windmill

Posted: January 02, 2009, 3:00 PM by NP Editor

Must we destroy the environment in order to save it? In the province of Ontario, the answer seems to be ”yes.”

This month, the Liberal provincial government of Dalton McGuinty will finish drafting its proposed Green Energy Act. The Act’s early drafts call for a big increase in renewable energy production in Ontario. Sounds nice! How do we get there?

The plan contains two big elements: (1) a huge cash giveaway  and (2) a brusque slap-down of local democracy.

Let’s talk about local democracy first. Communities often resist wind and solar power for the simple reason that they ruin the beauty of local landscapes. When you think of wind power, for example, don’t think of the solitary turbine that overtops the CNE grounds in Toronto. To meet the goals set out in the Green Energy Act, Ontario will have to build tens of thousands of these massive turbines, linked by a vast network of electrical transmission wires. Many hundreds of these turbines are proposed for my own beloved Prince Edward County. 

When people in places such as Prince Edward County hear about ”the environment,” they think of their environment. They think responsible stewardship means protecting what is lovely and natural. To them, it seems perverse to ruin the landscape in the name of preserving the environment. So they resist.

To deal with this resistance, the Green Energy Act proposes to strip local governments of their zoning powers. (In the draft’s own words, the province will propose: ”Streamlined regulatory and approvals processes that enable the rapid but prudent development of green energy projects across the province, reducing uncertainty and transaction costs to all involved.”)

It is important to realize that local scrutiny is often the only scrutiny a wind project gets. Unless a project uses federal money or land, there is no federal environmental assessment. Smaller projects are exempt from provincial assessment as well, and bigger projects can count on a very friendly hearing.

Not all localities will be ignored. There will be special consultation with First Nations/Métis communities (and a special piece of the action for them as well). But for everybody else, Ontario‘s message is: Shut up and eat your peas.

It’s not only local landowners and vacationers who are expected to shut up. It’s taxpayers as well.

Here we come to item (1), the huge cash giveaway.

The big inconvenient truth about ”green power” is that it is hugely costly – triple the cost of coal power, almost double the cost of nuclear. Advocates of green power insist that the price will soon decline. This promise never comes to pass, for reasons that should be obvious after a moment’s thought.

The big costs involved in a wind and solar projects are not the turbines and solar panels, although they are very expensive in their own right. The big costs are (i) acquisition of the vast amounts of land required to site the turbines and panels and (ii) the stringing of wires from thousands of small-scale power generators to the power distribution grid. These costs are more likely to rise than to fall.

Wind and solar suffer from inherent diseconomies of scale that can never be corrected. Unable to correct these costs, the province has decided instead to conceal them.

In the United States, wind power has been incentivized with lucrative tax credits: 2 US cents per kilowatt hour. (To put that subsidy in perspective, electricity from coal costs about 3 US cents per kilowatt hour.) America‘s lavish wind subsidy has been in place since 1992, yet even so, wind cannot compete: In 2007, wind provided less than 5% of America’s electricity supply.

Ontario, however, has no need of tax credits. In Ontario, power generation is monopolized by a government owned corporation. Ontario can simply order its power generation company to buy wind power at a price profitable to the producer – and then average that cost invisibly into Hydro bills.

The new act will offer producers even more. Not only will the province buy their power at a guaranteed profit – not only will it index that profit for inflation – but it will guarantee producers the financing necessary to build the wind turbines in the first place!

Good deal? It gets better. The dreary part about borrowing money, even from the government, is that you do sooner or later have to repay it. Or do you? The explanatory language treats repayment as more a suggestion or guideline than an obligation: ”The intent is that over time the market and community will meet all financial requirements for these projects.”

In the name of the environment, the McGuinty government proposes to despoil the province’s beauty and pillage the province’s power consumers.

That’s not green. That’s dumb.

© David Frum 2008

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a> 

varning-2

Annonser

Etiketter:

4 svar to “However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to be — the reality is even worse”

  1. Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 11 « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] 98 % på 3 dagar!,  Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 8,  However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to…,  Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 7,  Vindkraften som en […]

  2. The reality of wind power – Extremely high cost and unreliably « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to… […]

  3. Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt - 13 « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to… […]

  4. Record cold and snow in November – Wind Power at 12% output « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to… […]

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: