Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Chinese pay toxic price for a green world

  • 05-01-2011 10:04pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭


    times article here
    Just outside the heavily polluted industrial city of Baotou, Inner Mongolia, surrounded by smokestacks, lies a lake with no name.

    At this time of year the lake bed freezes into waves of solid mud. In summer, locals say, it oozes a viscous, red liquid. It is a “tailing lake”, where toxic rare earth elements from a mine 100 miles away are stored for further processing.

    Seepage from the lake has poisoned the surrounding farmland. “The crops stopped growing after being watered in these fields,” said Wang Cun Gang, a farmer. The local council paid villagers compensation for loss of income. “They tested our water and concluded that neither people nor animals should drink it, nor is it usable for irrigation.”

    This is the price Chinese peasants are paying for the low carbon future. Rare earths, a class of metallic elements that are highly reactive, are essential for the next generation of “green” technologies. The battery in a Toyota Prius car contains more than 22lb of lanthanum. Low-energy lightbulbs need terbium. The permanent magnets used in a 3 megawatt wind turbine use 2 tons of neodymium and other rare earths.

    In small workshops near Baotou, workers wearing no protective clothing watch over huge vats of acid and other chemicals, steam rising from rusty pipes, as they stir and bag toxic liquids and powders, turning the rare earth elements into compounds and oxides for further processing into batteries and magnets. Wearing no masks, they breathe air heavy with fumes and dust and handle chemicals without gloves.

    A thousand miles to the southeast, in Jiangxi province, the extraction process is more damaging. Green hills are studded with makeshift plants which pump acid into the earth. Last September villagers in Pitou county blocked lorries carrying chemicals and picketed the council, angry that their fields had been ruined.

    “We farm rice but cannot harvest anything any more,” said a woman, who was afraid to give her name because her husband is still in prison for protesting. “Fruit trees don’t bear fruit any more. Fish die in the river. We used to wash in the river and lots of fish would come to us, but there are none left. Even the weeds died.”

    Officially the polluting plants have been closed down, but villagers say they still operate at night, under armed guard, with the collusion of local Communist party leaders who help mafia bosses keep the lucrative trade going.


    Yep here we have it, a darker shade of green :rolleyes:

    Those shiny turbines we are buying from the Chinese, now the largest manufacturer of them and also country which controls 95% of rare earth production.
    Result in huge environmental damage, one needs to dig huge amounts of ore to extract small amounts of rare earth (hence the name rare), an energy intensive process which uses mostly dirty coal generate energy.

    We are effectively exporting our pollution to China, I wonder what do the environmentalists here have to say about this darker side of "green" technologies ...



    another article here
    0e56f7c3e0.jpg



    and another from same city


    chinese-pollution-spewing-factories-1000.jpg


«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    We are effectively exporting our pollution to China, I wonder what do the environmentalists here have to say about this darker side of "green" technologies ...
    Would it not be more accurate to refer to the above as a darker side of technology in general? Rare earth metals are used in far more than just wind turbines. Furthermore, China’s abysmal health & safety and environmental protection record extends far beyond rare earth metal production. The production of wind turbines does not necessitate environmental catastrophe in China.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Would it not be more accurate to refer to the above as a darker side of technology in general? Rare earth metals are used in far more than just wind turbines. Furthermore, China’s abysmal health & safety and environmental protection record extends far beyond rare earth metal production. The production of wind turbines does not necessitate environmental catastrophe in China.

    actually no, i dont think so.. it is a darker side of green...

    how many times have wind turbines been pushed on us as being the green option.. kinder better for the enviroment ect...
    yet now u can see the devastation these units bring...


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    actually no, i dont think so.. it is a darker side of green...

    how many times have wind turbines been pushed on us as being the green option.. kinder better for the enviroment ect...
    yet now u can see the devastation these units bring...

    There is confusion over the idea that any form of power generation is 100% clean. However, taking into consideration all environmental impacts, plus the obvious drawbacks of basing the global economy on finite fossil fuels, renewable energy is still the better option.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    Macha wrote: »
    There is confusion over the idea that any form of power generation is 100% clean. However, taking into consideration all environmental impacts, plus the obvious drawbacks of basing the global economy on finite fossil fuels, renewable energy is still the better option.

    personally i dont believe that any energy production is 100% green, as you say the production of the units(no matter what sort) and transport will have an impact on the envirment to a degree....

    but this is taking things a bit far.... this really shows how much damage is done to produce one of these wind turbines...


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    but this is taking things a bit far.... this really shows how much damage is done to produce one of these wind turbines...
    Have you seen what an open cast coal mine looks like?

    I agree that there are no perfectly green technological silver bullets to our environmental issues (even my beloved bike has a dark environmental history)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    Macha wrote: »
    Have you seen what an open cast coal mine looks like?

    i have thank you, but the point being no one is saying coal is an enviromental way of producing energy.....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Macha wrote: »
    Have you seen what an open cast coal mine looks like?

    Rare earth mines are even bigger and more damaging, the concentration of the rare earths in ores is very small (hence the name rare) in some cases even smaller than gold in gold ore
    Thats one of the reason's China has 95% or more of the worlds supplies, they are simply too dirty to operate anywhere else, there are rare ores in places like australia,us and canada but the more stringent laws means much higher cost and not being able to compete with China
    Higher costs of these metals would mean even higher costs of turbines, as outlined in the article typical 3MW turbine has 2tons of the rare earths

    And thats before we get to cars and their electric cells, lookup lithium mining in Andes
    Macha wrote: »
    Have you seen what an open cast coal mine looks like?
    The Chinese are building a new coal plant every week, refining and mining for rare earths takes huge amounts of energy mostly derived from dirty coal


    As I said not so Green, people on this forum seem to get carried away and talk as if Wind turbines grow from the ground and electric cars are delivered by Santa :D, I think its important that these issues are highlighted and brought to discussion. Theres no such thing as free lunch, in case of China its a toxic lunch.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Rare earth mines are even bigger and more damaging, the concentration of the rare earths in ores is very small (hence the name rare) in some cases even smaller than gold in gold ore
    Thats one of the reason's China has 95% or more of the worlds supplies, they are simply too dirty to operate anywhere else, there are rare ores in places like australia,us and canada but the more stringent laws means much higher cost and not being able to compete with China
    Higher costs of these metals would mean even higher costs of turbines, as outlined in the article typical 3MW turbine has 2tons of the rare earths

    And thats before we get to cars and their electric cells, lookup lithium mining in Andes


    The Chinese are building a new coal plant every week, refining and mining for rare earths takes huge amounts of energy mostly derived from dirty coal

    Again, all action should be viewed in consideration of the altneratives.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    As I said not so Green, people on this forum seem to get carried away and talk as if Wind turbines grow from the ground and electric cars are delivered by Santa :D, I think its important that these issues are highlighted and brought to discussion. Theres no such thing as free lunch, in case of China its a toxic lunch.
    True but please keep the comments about "people on this forum" out of the discussion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    Macha wrote: »
    Again, all action should be viewed in consideration of the altneratives.


    .

    very true, so my question would be seeing the devastion these units are leaving behind, is gas not the better more greener option? even though on burning it does release some fumes into the air


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    how many times have wind turbines been pushed on us as being the green option.. kinder better for the enviroment ect...
    Everything has some kind of environmental impact associated with its production. I’d still be pretty confident that the environmental impact of a wind farm is low relative to alternative forms of power generation.
    robtri wrote: »
    yet now u can see the devastation these units bring...
    It’s not wind turbines that are wreaking havoc with natural habitats in China, it’s China’s approach to, well, pretty much anything really – their environmental record is pretty abysmal.
    robtri wrote: »
    very true, so my question would be seeing the devastion these units are leaving behind, is gas not the better more greener option? even though on burning it does release some fumes into the air
    Gas would be one of my preferred options too, but does the construction of a gas-fired power station not have a pretty significant ecological impact? For example, a gas-fired power plant contains turbines, doesn’t it?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Everything has some kind of environmental impact associated with its production. I’d still be pretty confident that the environmental impact of a wind farm is low relative to alternative forms of power generation.

    The important point is that there is an environmental impact, some of the people arguing for wind power make it sound as if its cleaner than Virgin Mary.
    I am still not convinced nor buy all the hype surrounding wind, too much sales pitching too litle in the way of facts, studies and cost/benefit analyses.
    I dont like how the country is being directed down a single path of generating majority of energy from wind and more importantly all subsidised by everyone else but the people making guaranteed profits at our expense.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    It’s not wind turbines that are wreaking havoc with natural habitats in China, it’s China’s approach to, well, pretty much anything really – their environmental record is pretty abysmal.

    Then why are we and others trading with them and buying their products? I though environmentalists like to boycott things that are unethical or dirty, why nothing being done about this?

    djpbarry wrote: »
    Gas would be one of my preferred options too, but does the construction of a gas-fired power station not have a pretty significant ecological impact? For example, a gas-fired power plant contains turbines, doesn’t it?

    One gas turbine can produce up to several hundred MW on demand, one wind turbine is about max 3-5MW now (when wind blows of course) hence you need loads of these in different locations to provide same energy as one gas turbine for example

    and of course to connect these locations you need miles of cables and pylons, which dont grown on trees either.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I though environmentalists like to boycott things that are unethical or dirty...
    You've been asked once already to refrain from posting this kind of comment. You won't be asked a third time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Everything has some kind of environmental impact associated with its production. I’d still be pretty confident that the environmental impact of a wind farm is low relative to alternative forms of power generation.
    yes everything has an envromental impact.. but as i have said, not everything is been pushed as been "greeen" better for the enviroment..
    these wind turbines are been pushed as been harmless to the enviroment and dont pollute.... but their construction is causing devasting effects...
    I dont know if a wind turbine hasa lower impact overall than other forms of energy generation...but thats not the point..... no one is selling coal or gas as being enviromentally friendly

    djpbarry wrote: »
    It’s not wind turbines that are wreaking havoc with natural habitats in China, it’s China’s approach to, well, pretty much anything really – their environmental record is pretty abysmal.

    yes it is abysmal and by purchasing their products like the wind turbines we are contributing to this damage..
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Gas would be one of my preferred options too, but does the construction of a gas-fired power station not have a pretty significant ecological impact? For example, a gas-fired power plant contains turbines, doesn’t it?

    iirc most gas turbine generators dont have a lot of rare earth elements, their construction is completely different than wind turbines.. iirc


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    very true, so my question would be seeing the devastion these units are leaving behind, is gas not the better more greener option? even though on burning it does release some fumes into the air

    No, I wouldn't consider gas greener because with wind, 90% of the cost and 99% of the environmental damage is in the turbine manufacture and installation. With gas, the environmental damage is in the extraction, plant construction and throughout the running of the plant.

    When all these are taken into consideration (and not just ghg emissions at that), I would consider wind and other renewables to have a smaller environmental impact.

    Having said that, I would have to look around for some studies. I saw some a while ago...could dig them out.

    Edit: Also, gas and renewables work very well together so I see, in the near future anyway, gas and renewables plus some nuclear being the most likely path for Europe.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,349 ✭✭✭Jimmy Garlic


    The whole wind farm thing is a complete racket at every level, it turns out that in the UK during the freeze when demand for electricity was at its highest the wind eyesores....sorry farms were working at 1% capacity and traditional power plants were nearly at breaking point trying to meet demand. As a source of power they are completely unreliable, they are only suitable on a much smaller scale for local or domestic power generation that is backed up by a battery bank, they have no place on a national grid.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Macha wrote: »
    No, I wouldn't consider gas greener because with wind, 90% of the cost and 99% of the environmental damage is in the turbine manufacture and installation. With gas, the environmental damage is in the extraction, plant construction and throughout the running of the plant.

    When all these are taken into consideration (and not just ghg emissions at that), I would consider wind and other renewables to have a smaller environmental impact.

    Having said that, I would have to look around for some studies. I saw some a while ago...could dig them out.

    Edit: Also, gas and renewables work very well together so I see, in the near future anyway, gas and renewables plus some nuclear being the most likely path for Europe.

    Actually we are doing the planet a favour by burning all that methane (natural gas) since its 40x more potent than CO2.
    You wouldn't want all this methane to find its way into atmosphere, as its doing already on its own in places like Russian tundra.

    Anyways considering this country has more cattle than people farting and pooping away methane in the fields :D this country aint exactly green.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Actually we are doing the planet a favour by burning all that methane (natural gas) since its 40x more potent than CO2.
    You wouldn't want all this methane to find its way into atmosphere, as its doing already on its own in places like Russian tundra.

    Anyways considering this country has more cattle than people farting and pooping away methane in the fields :D this country aint exactly green.
    Tell me you're joking.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    The important point is that there is an environmental impact, some of the people arguing for wind power make it sound as if its cleaner than Virgin Mary.
    What people?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I dont like how the country is being directed down a single path of generating majority of energy from wind...
    Majority of energy from wind? I don’t know about that.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Then why are we and others trading with them and buying their products?
    Good question. But then, if we were to boycott every nation with standards lower than the EU, be they environmental, health & safety, or whatever, then the EU wouldn’t be conducting a great deal of trade with anyone. I doubt there’s much of an apetite in “the west” to force China to raise their game anyway, as this would result in more expensive products.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    One gas turbine can produce up to several hundred MW on demand, one wind turbine is about max 3-5MW now (when wind blows of course) hence you need loads of these in different locations to provide same energy as one gas turbine for example
    That doesn’t really address my point?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    and of course to connect these locations you need miles of cables and pylons, which dont grown on trees either.
    As opposed to a gas-fired station?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Actually we are doing the planet a favour by burning all that methane (natural gas) since its 40x more potent than CO2.
    ...if released into the atmosphere.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    these wind turbines are been pushed as been harmless to the enviroment and dont pollute...
    By who?
    robtri wrote: »
    iirc most gas turbine generators dont have a lot of rare earth elements, their construction is completely different than wind turbines.. iirc
    I don’t see why it should be – the principle of operation is exactly the same.
    As a source of power they are completely unreliable...
    Define “unreliable”.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    By who?
    does that really need an answer?? seriously???


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I don’t see why it should be – the principle of operation is exactly the same.
    as i said iirc they are not built the same... there operation is different.....
    will have to see if i can find some plans for them


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    does that really need an answer?? seriously???
    Yes please. Who has suggested that wind turbines are harmless to the environment and why should we listen to them?
    robtri wrote: »
    as i said iirc they are not built the same... there operation is different...
    The principle of operation (electricity generation) is exactly the same in either case – I would be surprised if the designs were radically different (but I’m open to correction). However, the general point here is that a gas-fired power station has a considerable economic impact (although I would, at present, favour gas generation over coal or oil) and I would be very surprised if it was the more ecologically sound option versus wind.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,349 ✭✭✭Jimmy Garlic


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Define “unreliable”.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unreliable

    Because wind is intermittent and they are reliant on wind to produce power, no wind- no power, too much wind- power surge. Often times when there is little or no wind (such as during the freeze) there is a bigger demand for power. Their practically is very questionable to say the least.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yes please. Who has suggested that wind turbines are harmless to the environment and why should we listen to them?

    i never used harmless, i used the Green option...
    how about elccy companies, green party, sei.... to name a few

    djpbarry wrote: »
    The principle of operation (electricity generation) is exactly the same in either case – I would be surprised if the designs were radically different (but I’m open to correction). However, the general point here is that a gas-fired power station has a considerable economic impact (although I would, at present, favour gas generation over coal or oil) and I would be very surprised if it was the more ecologically sound option versus wind.

    i wouldnt be too surprised if it was more ecological sound than wind, but seeing as neither of us know the answer then we will have to agree to disagree


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Because wind is intermittent and they are reliant on wind to produce power, no wind- no power, too much wind- power surge.
    Nobody is advocating that we switch to 100% wind power for our electricity. However, every megawatt generated from wind is one less megawatt of energy derived from (imported) fossil fuels. Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels. How is that a bad thing?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    i never used harmless...
    Yeah you did:
    robtri wrote: »
    these wind turbines are been pushed as been harmless to the environment...
    robtri wrote: »
    how about elccy companies, green party, sei....
    I’d be very surprised if any such organisations claimed that wind turbines were environmentally “harmless”.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yeah you did:

    I’d be very surprised if any such organisations claimed that wind turbines were environmentally “harmless”.

    sorry that my bat... meant to continue to use the "green" word.. as in being pushed as the green alternative


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Nobody is advocating that we switch to 100% wind power for our electricity. However, every megawatt generated from wind is one less megawatt of energy derived from (imported) fossil fuels. Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels. How is that a bad thing?

    If we sell electricity generated from wind, at a loss i.e. if it costs more to generate electricity from wind than we can get from selling it, then there is no money remaning to offset the cost of importing fossil fuels.

    http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/3639/full
    "Britain is obtaining only a fraction of its electricity from renewable sources, just under 7 per cent in 2009-2010. The wholesale price of that quantity of electricity would be approximately £1bn, but the Renewables Obligation, a complex subsidy paid to generators but drawn indirectly from bills, adds a further £1.4bn, more than doubling the cost to the British consumer."


    On the subject of the colour of renewables, how green is displacing 1.3 million people?
    http://www.palinstravels.co.uk/book-829
    "Up river from the construction site we enter the most unspoilt pastoral landscape I've yet seen in China. A panorama of traditional cultivation patterns - terraced valleys winding back into the mountains, contours picked out by stone walls and winding paths. Hamlets of whitewashed stone cottages with wide-hipped roofs are tucked away amongst the trees, or dotted along sandy bays. Quite soon all this will have vanished beneath the waters of the reservoir. The occupants of those whitewashed farmhouses will be among the one and a half million who will be sent elsewhere, their homes and livelihoods sacrificed to the industrialization of the Yangtze Basin."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam
    "However, the dam flooded archaeological and cultural sites and displaced some 1.3 million people, and is causing significant ecological changes, including an increased risk of landslides.[8] The dam has been a controversial topic both in China and abroad.[9]"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    If we sell electricity generated from wind, at a loss...
    Why is it being sold at a loss?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Why is it being sold at a loss?

    Because it's costing more than twice it's wholesale price to produce it
    http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/3639/full
    "Britain is obtaining only a fraction of its electricity from renewable sources, just under 7 per cent in 2009-2010. The wholesale price of that quantity of electricity would be approximately £1bn, but the Renewables Obligation, a complex subsidy paid to generators but drawn indirectly from bills, adds a further £1.4bn, more than doubling the cost to the British consumer."

    (To balance its grid, Denmark sells some of its wind generated electrcity; they have been selling it at a loss.)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Because it's costing more than twice it's wholesale price to produce it
    Spread over what time frame?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    To balance its grid, Denmark sells some of its wind generated electrcity; they have been selling it at a loss.
    All the time?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Spread over what time frame?

    The ROCs are applicable all the time.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    All the time?

    I believe so, why why should Denmarks' neighbours pay more for elecricity than it costs them to produce it themselves.

    If you doubt my original statements, it would be helpful if you could provide counter evidence to them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    The ROCs are applicable all the time.
    In the UK, but your description of how they work is inaccurate:
    The RO is the main support scheme for renewable electricity projects in the UK. It places an obligation on UK suppliers of electricity to source an increasing proportion of their electricity from renewable sources.

    A Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC) is a green certificate issued to an accredited generator for eligible renewable electricity generated within the United Kingdom and supplied to customers within the United Kingdom by a licensed electricity supplier. One ROC is issued for each megawatt hour (MWh) of eligible renewable output generated.
    ...
    The Orders place an obligation on licensed electricity suppliers in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to source an increasing proportion of electricity from renewable sources. In 2005-06 it was 5.5 per cent (2.5 per cent in Northern Ireland). In 2006-07 the obligation is set at 6.7 per cent (2.6 per cent in Northern Ireland).

    Suppliers meet their obligations by presenting sufficient Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs). Where suppliers do not have sufficient ROCs to meet their obligations, they must pay an equivalent amount into a fund, the proceeds of which are paid back on a pro-rated basis to those suppliers that have presented ROCs. The Government intends that suppliers will be subject to a renewables obligation until 31 March 2037.
    http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Pages/RenewablObl.aspx
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    I believe so...
    Do you have any evidence to support this belief?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    In the UK, but your description of how they work is inaccurate:

    Are you disagreeing with this statement "...but the Renewables Obligation, a complex subsidy paid to generators but drawn indirectly from bills, adds a further £1.4bn, more than doubling the cost to the British consumer."
    and if so please would you provide the evidence?
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Do you have any evidence to support this belief?
    http://www.ref.org.uk/images/PDFs/sharman.ice.pt2.pdf
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUsun3hIT0

    Would you provide evidence along with the relevant costs please to support your original statement "Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels."?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Are you disagreeing with this statement "...but the Renewables Obligation, a complex subsidy paid to generators but drawn indirectly from bills, adds a further £1.4bn, more than doubling the cost to the British consumer."
    Yes.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    and if so please would you provide the evidence?
    I just did – the renewables obligation is effectively paid by consumers to other consumers.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    I’ve just scanned through this document (admittedly rather quickly) and I’m not seeing any statement to support your belief that Denmark sells wind power at a loss all of the time.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    I’m in work and can’t watch videos right now, but I’m pretty sure you posted that video in another thread and claimed it to be “from the heart of Denmark’s wind industry”, which it clearly is not. Is there a particular statement made in the video that you wish to draw attention to?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Would you provide evidence along with the relevant costs please to support your original statement "Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels."?
    You can qualify it with “If the sale price exceeds the production price”.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭maninasia


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Everything has some kind of environmental impact associated with its production. I’d still be pretty confident that the environmental impact of a wind farm is low relative to alternative forms of power generation.
    It’s not wind turbines that are wreaking havoc with natural habitats in China, it’s China’s approach to, well, pretty much anything really – their environmental record is pretty abysmal.
    Gas would be one of my preferred options too, but does the construction of a gas-fired power station not have a pretty significant ecological impact? For example, a gas-fired power plant contains turbines, doesn’t it?

    Everything is relative and the best policy is energy use mitigation in the first place.

    Having said that please look at your comment blaming China over their environmental record. The real fact of the matter (and I am not one for PC talk usually) is that anybody who buys an item at lower cost from China is contributing to this and multinationals AND Chinese companies and the Chinese government AND Western governments all share blame.
    Western consumers and companies can wash their hands with pollution that is unseen and 'over the border'. It's like the case of Sweden and Denmark proudly proclaiming how they cut greenhouse gas emissions without mentioning that most of their polluting industry and manufacturing simply moved to China!

    Green energy is only feasible with economic pricing, but economic pricing can sometimes only be acheived with environmental degradation and large energy input from dirty fuels.

    This subject is very important to discuss..all parts of a process need to be looked at and understood without saying 'wind good, fossil fuel bad'.

    Overall I'm in favour of renewable technologies but the greens don't do themselves any favours pulling the curtains over their own eyes. Nuclear energy but from outside the state, wind power but with foreign environmental degradation and unreliable supply.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yes.
    I just did – the renewables obligation is effectively paid by consumers to other consumers.

    Can you quote the words that say this?
    Can you explain how I get back the money I have paid through an unitemised charge on my electricity bill?
    Who are you referring to when you say "consumer"?
    Do I have to have my own renewable generator to get money back from the ROCs system?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yes.
    You can qualify it with “If the sale price exceeds the production price”.

    Thank you for the qualification; so you're saying:
    "Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels, if the sale price exceeds the production price."?

    Can you provide evidence of examples where the sale price has exceeded the production price please?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭maninasia


    From a quick look at the posting of the certificate scheme it looks like a shared 'loss' subsidy among European countries. It does not actually improve the economics as far as I can see.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    maninasia wrote: »
    Everything is relative and the best policy is energy use mitigation in the first place.

    Having said that please look at your comment blaming China over their environmental record. The real fact of the matter (and I am not one for PC talk usually) is that anybody who buys an item at lower cost from China is contributing to this and multinationals AND Chinese companies and the Chinese government AND Western governments all share blame.
    I’m not in disagreement with any of that at all. What I am saying is that, just because this is the way things are done at present, and just because China is pretty lax in her approach to manufacturing at present (and/or the West is overlooking this), that doesn’t mean that this is the only way. There’s no reason why China cannot introduce more stringent regulations for environmental protection (and yes, it may take pressure from the West to achieve this) and, in so doing, produce more environmentally friendly turbines (for example). This will of course make said turbines more expensive and this, of course, should be factored into decisions to build more wind farms. However, as I said already in the thread, were China to improve her environmental record, I suspect it would result in just about everything produced there becoming more expensive.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭maninasia


    Yes it would make things more expensive ...hard to predict what that would do overall to environmentally but certainly wind power would be less feasible in the near term.
    It's happening right now actually. Between inflation in China, the rising yuan and the pressure to clean up it's environment things are going to change...inflation is going to feed into the rest of the world and have some knock-on effects. I think the days of getting ever cheaper stuff are finished especially with a rising Asian middle class demanding material goods.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yes.
    I’ve just scanned through this document (admittedly rather quickly) and I’m not seeing any statement to support your belief that Denmark sells wind power at a loss all of the time.
    I’m in work and can’t watch videos right now, but I’m pretty sure you posted that video in another thread and claimed it to be “from the heart of Denmark’s wind industry”, which it clearly is not. Is there a particular statement made in the video that you wish to draw attention to?

    Regarding Hugh Sharman's Telford Gold Award winning paper, the first paragraph on page 2 makes reference to the point in question and on the video, Hugh Sharman says "we invariably export it at a lower price than we paid for it".
    I urge you not to allow any description I may have attached to the video, to destract you from the value of it's content and apologise if this occurred; Hugh Sharman has a wealth of experience in the energy field.

    (Apologies for answering in a few posts but am inbetween doing other things)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Regarding Hugh Sharman's Telford Gold Award winning paper, the first paragraph on page 2 makes reference to the point in question...
    Does it? Again, I’m not seeing anything clearly stated about Denmark consistently exporting wind power at a loss. I would however draw your attention to the introductory paragraph on the first page, in which it is stated that the author concludes that wind power should be exploited as fully as possible. Not that this, in isolation, really means all that much.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    ...and on the video, Hugh Sharman says "we invariably export it at a lower price than we paid for it".
    And yet, if we consult the list of references at the end of the paper referred to above, we see, at the top of the list, “Why wind power works for Denmark”, by one H. Sharman. Hmmm – I call shenanigans on the part of the video’s producers.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    I urge you not to allow any description I may have attached to the video, to destract you from the value of it's content...
    What value is this? The video has quite clearly been heavily edited to provide an extremely biased view of the subject. Besides, I’m not really all that interested in what someone says or does not say in a video.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Does it? Again, I’m not seeing anything clearly stated about Denmark consistently exporting wind power at a loss. I would however draw your attention to the introductory paragraph on the first page, in which it is stated that the author concludes that wind power should be exploited as fully as possible. Not that this, in isolation, really means all that much.
    And yet, if we consult the list of references at the end of the paper referred to above, we see, at the top of the list, “Why wind power works for Denmark”, by one H. Sharman. Hmmm – I call shenanigans on the part of the video’s producers.
    What value is this? The video has quite clearly been heavily edited to provide an extremely biased view of the subject. Besides, I’m not really all that interested in what someone says or does not say in a video.

    If you're "not really all that interested in what someone says or does not say in a video", then why did you write "Is there a particular statement made in the video that you wish to draw attention to?"?

    In his report, Hugh Sharman writes "Denmark is able to support a high degree of wind penetration—24% of consumption— because it is inter-connected with much larger power systems, two of which have a high component of hydropower, the flexibility of which makes it the perfect balancing partner’ for wind. Indeed, Danish wind is in effect stored, sometimes at a high cost to Denmark, by the curtailment of hydropower."
    In the video he expands on the cost of this export to Norway and Sweden (the 'much larger power systems' he refers to).

    Anyway rather than making unfounded accusations, could you provide evidence on the matter in question please that contradicts the points raised and could you respond to msgs 37 and 38 when you get chance please (my apologies that these appeared a little earlier in the thread)?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Can you quote the words that say this?
    I already did:
    Suppliers meet their obligations by presenting sufficient Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs). Where suppliers do not have sufficient ROCs to meet their obligations, they must pay an equivalent amount into a fund, the proceeds of which are paid back on a pro-rated basis to those suppliers that have presented ROCs.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Can you explain how I get back the money I have paid through an unitemised charge on my electricity bill?
    Who are you referring to when you say "consumer"?
    Do I have to have my own renewable generator to get money back from the ROCs system?
    Stop being facetious please.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Can you provide evidence of examples where the sale price has exceeded the production price please?
    The cost to produce electricity from wind generation is about €0.04 per kWh. The cost of electricity in Ireland right now is about €0.16 per kWh.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    If you're "not really all that interested in what someone says or does not say in a video", then why did you write "Is there a particular statement made in the video that you wish to draw attention to?"?
    If you have a video of someone providing some clear figures on the economics of wind power, great - let’s see it. However, I’m not terribly interested in unqualified sound-bites.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    In his report, Hugh Sharman writes "Denmark is able to support a high degree of wind penetration—24% of consumption— because it is inter-connected with much larger power systems, two of which have a high component of hydropower, the flexibility of which makes it the perfect balancing partner’ for wind. Indeed, Danish wind is in effect stored, sometimes at a high cost to Denmark, by the curtailment of hydropower."
    In the video he expands on the cost of this export to Norway and Sweden (the 'much larger power systems' he refers to).
    Can you be a little more specific – what exactly is your point? You stated quite categorically that Denmark always exports power at a loss – you have not shown anything that supports this statement.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    @djpbarry

    The installed wind capacity in Ireland has grown steadily to about 1900MW in last few years and is projected to grow (in a strangely pulled out of someone rears) in a linear fashion for foreseable future as per eirgrid


    Then if wind is really so much cheaper you should have no issues producing a graph of electricity prices showing a corresponding and correlated decrease in electricity prices.
    Have fun finding such a graph/data, the one I found (attached) on electricity prices between 07-09 shows the clear correlation in prices between gas and electricity lowering prices (which of course were not allowed to be passed on in order to subsidise wind) and also shows the imports via interconnector
    of course there is no evidence of wind leading to lower prices and the increased reliance on imports from UK is worrying, so much for "independence"

    Oh and it seems Eirgrid will need 2.1 billion before 2015 to spend on the grid due to wind. As shown on recent RTE Primetime the head of Eirgrid doesnt know how much it will cost to meet the government targets, makes you wonder what he gets paid for.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    My point djpbarry is that you write (without any supporting evidence) that: “Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels.”
    I point out that this can only happen if the cost of wind generated electricity is less than the amount it can be sold for. I provide three links to support the unlikelihood of such a scenario.

    You on the other hand have provided one link (to OFGEM) which is fine except that you seem to be confusing the term ‘supplier’ and ‘consumer’.
    This link may help:
    http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldsctech/161/6032904.htm
    “Q55 Lord Jenkin of Roding: Could I ask a supplementary on that, because I moved an amendment when we had the Energy Bill which called on the Government to require the electricity suppliers to include on customers' bills an amount representing the cost of the Renewable Obligation, because, as I said earlier, it is not the Government that pays that, or the taxpayer; it is the consumer that pays that, and we carried that amendment.”

    You also write “The cost to produce electricity from wind generation is about €0.04 per kWh.”.
    Please would you provide a link to support this figure?
    Figures of 5.6p/kWh for on-shore wind and 10p/kWh for off-shore wind are shown here:
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/8060304.htm
    And at point 252 at this link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19510.htm
    “On the evidence submitted to us, renewable electricity is clearly more expensive than fossil fuel-fired and nuclear generation and leads to higher energy bills for consumers and businesses.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    The installed wind capacity in Ireland has grown steadily to about 1900MW in last few years and is projected to grow (in a strangely pulled out of someone rears) in a linear fashion for foreseable future as per eirgrid


    Then if wind is really so much cheaper you should have no issues producing a graph of electricity prices showing a corresponding and correlated decrease in electricity prices.
    The following paper shows that, unless fossil fuel prices remain low in the future (which seems unlikely), investing in wind will result in cheaper electricity prices in Ireland, provided increased connectivity with Britain is put in place:
    http://10.1093/oxrep/grp022


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    My point djpbarry is that you write (without any supporting evidence) that: “Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels.”
    I’ve already qualified that statement.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    I point out that this can only happen if the cost of wind generated electricity is less than the amount it can be sold for. I provide three links to support the unlikelihood of such a scenario.
    And I’ve already pointed out that electricity generated from wind is, right now, selling at a profit in Ireland (and probably the UK too).
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    You on the other hand have provided one link (to OFGEM) which is fine except that you seem to be confusing the term ‘supplier’ and ‘consumer’.
    Am I? Who pays the suppliers?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    I This link may help:
    http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldsctech/161/6032904.htm
    “Q55 Lord Jenkin of Roding: Could I ask a supplementary on that, because I moved an amendment when we had the Energy Bill which called on the Government to require the electricity suppliers to include on customers' bills an amount representing the cost of the Renewable Obligation, because, as I said earlier, it is not the Government that pays that, or the taxpayer; it is the consumer that pays that, and we carried that amendment.”
    And your point is?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    You also write “The cost to produce electricity from wind generation is about €0.04 per kWh.”.
    Please would you provide a link to support this figure?
    Figures of 5.6p/kWh for on-shore wind and 10p/kWh for off-shore wind are shown here:
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/8060304.htm
    Fine, let’s go with 5.6p/kWh. What price is electricity currently being sold for in Ireland?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    And at point 252 at this link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19510.htm
    “On the evidence submitted to us, renewable electricity is clearly more expensive than fossil fuel-fired and nuclear generation and leads to higher energy bills for consumers and businesses.
    And where’s the supporting evidence? Any reports I have seen (such as this one) show wind generation to be competitive with gas and nuclear.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The following paper shows that, unless fossil fuel prices remain low in the future (which seems unlikely), investing in wind will result in cheaper electricity prices in Ireland, provided increased connectivity with Britain is put in place:
    http://10.1093/oxrep/grp022

    invalid url?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    And I’ve already pointed out that electricity generated from wind is, right now, selling at a profit in Ireland (and probably the UK too).
    Your evidence please
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Am I? Who pays the suppliers?
    The consumer (for the hundreth time)
    djpbarry wrote: »
    And your point is?
    That the consumer pays the supplier
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Fine, let’s go with 5.6p/kWh. What price is electricity currently being sold for in Ireland?
    I don't know but remember to add the price of the ROCs to this 5.6p/kWh figure
    djpbarry wrote: »
    And where’s the supporting evidence? Any reports I have seen (such as this one) show wind generation to be competitive with gas and nuclear.
    I disagree that this shows wind generation to be competitive with gas and nuclear.
    Even though it includes a 'carbon cost'.
    It doesn't include the cost to the consumer of the ROCs.

    Here's another one: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/05/12/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/


  • Advertisement
Advertisement