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
Chinese pay toxic price for a green world
Options
Comments
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89000
In Finland they are planning for 100,000 storage. However, in the US the goalpost has moved to a million years.The cost of waste-disposal isn't included in the running of a nuclear plant...because no-one has a long-term waste-disposal system up and running.that they're applying. How, exactly, does one calculate the emissions costs?0 -
Chloe Pink wrote: »They also exclude the "incentivisation" payments.
And strangely when you take these away, the generating companies don't seem so interested in building wind turbines.
But I'm fairly sure you know all of this already
these incentives are only needed while gas is still cheap, it will go up. even if you took them away now there is enough momentum to keep the industry going.
actually gas power (and hydro) is the ideal sort to have running alongside wind power. its very easy to switch a gas turbine on or off in response to demand and wind generation. its almost like any electricity generated using wind power directly equates to gas not burnt.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Are the subsidies that fossil fuels enjoy also factored in?Chloe Pink wrote: »They also exclude the "incentivisation" payments.
And strangely when you take these away, the generating companies don't seem so interested in building wind turbines.
But I'm fairly sure you know all of this already0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 6185
An outdated but most recent report on the issue:
http://www.comharsdc.ie/_files/SubsidiesandEmissionsfromFossilFuel_researchJan05.pdf
Globally, the IEA estimates fossil fuel subsidies are in the region of $550 billion per annum.
But to answer your question, they are far more generous:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows.htmlGlobal subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf support given to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and biofuels, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said.
I don't understand why people get excited about subsidies to the renewable energy industry when the fossil fuel industry enjoys so many more - it makes no sense.
And even if renewables did receive more market supports than fossil fuels, what about the myriad of externalities and serious questions over valuations and costings in our economic model? Why are we so sure that we have got it right (especially considering recent global economic events). What is the true cost of a tree? Is it the market value of the wood? Or is it the opportunity cost of avoiding damaging floods? In a recent TEEB study, the Amazon's role in preventing the siltation in hydro-power reservoirs could be worth as much as $600m per year. It's contribution to the lives of its inhabitants through shelter, food, clothing and general livelihood is estimated at €1 billion. There are a whole host of values that are not captured in today's standard economic methods.
Sorry went on a bit of a rant!0 -
Advertisement
-
The author claimed that there is a direct correlation between wind generation and electricity exports from Denmark. The conclusion is reached that Denmark is therefore exporting large amounts of wind energy. But such a conclusion seems rather simplistic. How often does Denmark produce enough wind energy to meet its entire demand and have enough left over to export? I’m guessing never? So what’s really being exported? Is it the electricity derived from wind? Or is it the thermally-generated electricity sourced from plants that can’t knock down quick enough when wind generation increases, resulting in supply exceeding demand and electricity needing to be exported?
the report shows that the exportation of renewable energy was costing the danish people 1 milliion Danish krona......
obviously you cant tell exactly what electron is from what source..Nope, that’s not what I’m saying. If I own a single turbine feeding into the grid, then it’s obviously fairly easy for me to determine whether or not I’m making a profit, based on how much I’m being paid to supply the grid. However, when electricity is subsequently exported from the national grid, the situation becomes more complicated – is it “my” electricity that’s been exported?
yes it is complicated and maybe you dont understand it.. but it is traceable... they dont do it by electrons, they do it by capacity ...0 -
...based on the assumption that large amounts of wind generated electricity is being exported. However...the report shows that the exportation of renewable energy was costing the danish people 1 milliion Danish krona......
http://www.windpower.org/download/541/DanishWindPower_Export_and_Cost.pdfThis paper argues that only approx. 1 percent of the wind power production is exported. The rest is used to meet domestic Danish electricity demands.
The cost of wind power is paid solely by the electricity consumers and the net influence on consumer prices was as low as 1-3 percent on average in the period 2004-2008. In 2008, the net influence even decreased the average consumer price, although only slightly.
The above also demonstrates that the alleged correlation between wind generation and electricity exports is very poor, with a coefficient of determination of just 0.39.
I don’t fully understand the nuances of energy markets, no, which is why I’m not forming any solid conclusions either way. But do feel free to point out any flaws in my logic as posted thus far.yes it is complicated and maybe you dont understand it...0 -
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?
just being looking around on this point, most gas turnine electrical generators dont use permanent magnets, they use field coils instead of magnets in the generators0 -
[QUOTE=djpbarry;70193228, which is why I’m not forming any solid conclusions either way. .[/QUOTE]
yes you have, you have already decided its false..0 -
...based on the assumption that large amounts of wind generated electricity is being exported. However...
http://www.windpower.org/download/541/DanishWindPower_Export_and_Cost.pdf
The above also demonstrates that the alleged correlation between wind generation and electricity exports is very poor, with a coefficient of determination of just 0.39.
I don’t fully understand the nuances of energy markets, no, which is why I’m not forming any solid conclusions either way. But do feel free to point out any flaws in my logic as posted thus far.
taht paper is set out to try to prove th CEPOS report is incorrect. After a quick review of it, it is making assumption ( possibly just as badly as CEPOS) to make it points .... like the assumption that all exports of electricity are from small to med size power stations.. therefore it can calculate the renewable energy exports to 1%.... that to me isnt the right way of doing it...
overall i would take the CEPOS report0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't understand why people get excited about subsidies to the renewable energy industry when the fossil fuel industry enjoys so many more - it makes no sense.
two wrongs dont make a right
Just because someone (like me) doesnt agree with wind subsidies doesn't automatically mean i agree with subsidies of coal, turf etc
In fact I am against any form of subsidies of anything be it houses or windmills or turf or electric vehicles or nuclear or sugar, it is not the job of the state to pick winners in various industries with money they dont have.0 -
http://www.windpower.org/download/541/DanishWindPower_Export_and_Cost.pdf
It may be worth noting that this report is from http://www.windpower.org/en/about_us.html -
"DWIA's members consists of wind turbine manufacturers, energy companies and the wide range of companies that provide components, services and consultancy.
DWIA manages the interests of the members and create the framework for the various fora, in which members can utilise the potential in knowledge sharing and exchange expiriences with players within and outside the industry.
Furthermore DWIA promotes member interests on both the national and international political stage."
This does not mean the report should be ignored, but rather that it should be read in context.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »In Finland they are planning for 100,000 storage. However, in the US the goalpost has moved to a million years.
Nuclear waste is a result of purely political decisions not scientific or engineering constraints.
Most of the waste can be reused and recycled in breeder reactors or rendered alot less dangerous with shorter lifespans via processing. And then there's thorium which was already mentioned.
edit: speaking of waste disposal0 -
An outdated but most recent report on the issue:
http://www.comharsdc.ie/_files/SubsidiesandEmissionsfromFossilFuel_researchJan05.pdf
Globally, the IEA estimates fossil fuel subsidies are in the region of $550 billion per annum.
But to answer your question, they are far more generous:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows.html
I don't understand why people get excited about subsidies to the renewable energy industry when the fossil fuel industry enjoys so many more - it makes no sense.
I think ei.sdraob makes a most valid point in post 102.
Regarding the subsidy figures, these need putting into context:
"Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008."
So fossil fuels received a subsidy 10 times larger than that for renewables.
But are fossil fuels supplying 10 times more energy than renewables?
The renewables subsidies apply mainly to electricity generation.
Renewables supply only a small percentage of total electricity generation, for ease, are we OK to go for 10%?
The fossil fuel subsidies apply to electriciy generation, heating fuel and transport fuel; these very roughly equate to a third each of our energy usage.
No, fossil fuels are supplying 30 times more energy than renewables i.e. the fossil fuel subsidies are a third less than those for renewables or the converse is that renewables receive three times the subsidies of fossil fuels.And even if renewables did receive more market supports than fossil fuels, what about the myriad of externalities and serious questions over valuations and costings in our economic model? Why are we so sure that we have got it right (especially considering recent global economic events). What is the true cost of a tree? Is it the market value of the wood? Or is it the opportunity cost of avoiding damaging floods? In a recent TEEB study, the Amazon's role in preventing the siltation in hydro-power reservoirs could be worth as much as $600m per year. It's contribution to the lives of its inhabitants through shelter, food, clothing and general livelihood is estimated at €1 billion. There are a whole host of values that are not captured in today's standard economic methods.
Sorry went on a bit of a rant!
Don't apologise for the rant, I agree, sometimes value is hard to quantify. But from the research I have encountered, I am alarmed at the focus on wind generated electricity as a means of reducing CO2 emissions. And when did 'reducing CO2 emissions' morph into 'building renewables'?0 -
so i got interested in the subject now and started looking around
http://www.posiva.fi/files/375/Onkalo_ENG_290306_kevyt.pdf
Scandinavian countries are always held as an example and admired by Left leaning and Green posters (usually one follows the other) in all sorts of threads there, if they can do it why cant we? Ireland is very geologically stable, hell for that matter if an advanced economy like Japan with severe earthquakes and no natural carbon resources can run a nuclear industry why cant we?. We call ourselves "smart" but in reality the country is rather backwards and conservative.
There is nothing "smart" about importing turbines made in China and plonking them all over the place.
anywaysFinland has two nuclear power plants, each with two
reactor units. The power plants are at Olkiluoto in
Eurajoki, on the Finnish west coast, and at
Hästholmen in Loviisa, on the Finnish south coast.
The combined output of the two reactors at
Teollisuuden Voima Oy’s power plant at Olkiluoto is
1,680 MW and that of the two reactors at Fortum
Power and Heat Oy’s power plant in Loviisa is 976 MW.
Finland made a decision in principle in 2002 to build
a fifth reactor unit. The new reactor unit (OL3) being
built at Olkiluoto will have an output of 1600 MW.
....
Under the Nuclear Energy Act, funds for nuclear
waste management are collected in advance in the
price of nuclear electricity and paid into the State
Nuclear Waste Management Fund. In 2005, the
Fund stood at some EUR 1400 million, which will
also be used to cover the cost of decommissioning
of the plants.
Under the Government’s decision in principle,
the spent nuclear fuel generated by Finland’s existing
nuclear power plant units and the new unit (OL3)
can be finally disposed of at Olkiluoto. A maximum
of some 6,500 tonnes of uranium will have
accumulated for disposal at Olkiluoto.
The cost of disposal is factored into the lifetime costs of the plants,
the eirgrid report linked earlier uses an example of 2GW of nuclear in one of their scenarios with the costs taken from the experience of nuclear in Finland which includes disposal.
If you dont take the cost of disposal into account the nuclear would be much cheaper, but of course you have to...0 -
Decided what’s false? The correlation between wind generation in Denmark and electricity exports is traced back to this report, which states...yes you have, you have already decided its false..
Now, I don’t know about you, but that’s not exactly what I would call a rigorous analysis.54 charts, such as January 2003, have been drawn between January 2000 and June 2004. Note the almost mirror reflection which occurs in many of these charts. These demonstrate that there is a clear relationship between wincarpet output and net power flows. When wind power enters the Danish system, there is usually a net flow from Denmark to Germany, Sweden and Norway. Some might say, in effect, that wind power is being “exported”.
Where does it say that exactly?taht paper is set out to try to prove th CEPOS report is incorrect. After a quick review of it, it is making assumption ( possibly just as badly as CEPOS) to make it points .... like the assumption that all exports of electricity are from small to med size power stations...0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89000
I think you may have missed my point about moving goal posts. What was acceptible in the 1950's is not today. What is acceptable in Finland is not acceptable in the US. Nuclear regulations have over time become more stringent and more costly.The cost of disposal is factored into the lifetime costs of the plants,
the eirgrid report linked earlier uses an example of 2GW of nuclear in one of their scenarios with the costs taken from the experience of nuclear in Finland which includes disposal.
If you dont take the cost of disposal into account the nuclear would be much cheaper, but of course you have to...
even 100,000 years is a very long time. Most of the countries that have nuclear waste dumps have had ice ages in that time frame. Glaciers can move mountains , the weight of several Km of ice can cause earthquakes.
yes it is possible to burn up a lot of the waste , BUT it's not economic at present.
same applies to all technologies, really , health and safety costs can increase in the future, look at asbestos as an example of how a cheap material with some very attractive properties turned into a despised toxin0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
I don't agree because I don't have an ideological opposition to subsidies if they bring us closer to where we, as a society, want to be. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with subsidies unless that value judgement is based on an absolute belief in the magic of free markets. I don't have that belief and I think every economist should be taught the Nash equilibrium.Chloe Pink wrote: »I think ei.sdraob makes a most valid point in post 102.
Fossil fuels are a mature industry. Are we going to add up historically how much subsidies fossil fuels have received since the 1800s?Chloe Pink wrote: »Regarding the subsidy figures, these need putting into context:
"Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008."
So fossil fuels received a subsidy 10 times larger than that for renewables.
But are fossil fuels supplying 10 times more energy than renewables?
The renewables subsidies apply mainly to electricity generation.
Renewables supply only a small percentage of total electricity generation, for ease, are we OK to go for 10%?
The fossil fuel subsidies apply to electriciy generation, heating fuel and transport fuel; these very roughly equate to a third each of our energy usage.
No, fossil fuels are supplying 30 times more energy than renewables i.e. the fossil fuel subsidies are a third less than those for renewables or the converse is that renewables receive three times the subsidies of fossil fuels.
In your posts, you are very clearly making a set of very simplistic assumptions and calculations to suit your position but I'm afraid they don't show the full picture.
I personally am alarmed at the lack of alarm that most sections of our society display when faced with the realities of the fossil fuel industry and Ireland's position within the fossil fuel market.Chloe Pink wrote: »Don't apologise for the rant, I agree, sometimes value is hard to quantify. But from the research I have encountered, I am alarmed at the focus on wind generated electricity as a means of reducing CO2 emissions. And when did 'reducing CO2 emissions' morph into 'building renewables'?
Re: renewables and CO2 emissions, decarbonising the energy sector is one of the key goals in reduction any economy's ghg emissions.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »even 100,000 years is a very long time. Most of the countries that have nuclear waste dumps have had ice ages in that time frame. Glaciers can move mountains , the weight of several Km of ice can cause earthquakes.
You think that if a country is covered under 2 km of ice then buried nuclear waste be the least of some future siblings worries?
As I said the technology and science already exists to reduce most of the waste to very small amounts of short lived elements. The decision not to reprocess or burn the waste in breeder reactors is a political one. Maybe this will change with time.
Anyways while we continue to argue than nuclear is not an option the rest of the world is going ahead and building more of them, and we continue to burn coal which is slightly radioactive.0 -
Now, I don’t know about you, but that’s not exactly what I would call a rigorous analysis.
The input is pretty impressive:
"The work has been a collaborative effort between the original stakeholders who were, Dansk Fjenrvarmeværkers Forening (DFF), Norsk Hydro Energy, Norsk Hydro Electrolysers, Naturgas MidtNord, Ringkøbing Fjernvarmværk (RFV), IRD A/S, Dr Klaus Illum and Incoteco (Denmark) ApS. Incoteco’s Hugh Sharman has been responsible for the project coordination and editing of the report and is grateful to the writers who have written up the most specialised sections.
It is important to mention that other companies and institutions, although not originally nor officially partners in the project, have shown great interest and contributed with their valuable time, ideas, advice and experience. These are, ELTRA, ELSAM, Wärtsila OY, H2 LOGIC ApS, Markedskraft, Vindenergi Danmark, Danmarks Vindmølleforening, Dansk Gasteknisk Center a/s, AGA-Linde, Hollensen Energi and Ringkøbing Amt.
The project was conducted in five main stages. At the end of the first four stages, the stakeholders and guests gathered to meet each other and to present their findings and/or insights. The project diary is as follows:
1. Preparation, mid-March to mid-April
2. “Kick-off” (stakeholders’ meeting at DFF, Kolding, 14 April, 2004)
3. Mid-point stakeholders’ meeting at Ringkøbing Amt, 25 May, 2004
4. Concluding stakeholders’ meeting at DFF, Kolding, 1st July, 2004
5. Final Analysis, Report preparation, review of drafts, agreement and report submission, mid August.
Special thanks are due to DFF’s Viktor Jensen and Kurt Risager, whose help, guidance, hard work and hospitality, has made the report possible. Thanks must also go to the personnel at Norsk Hydro in Oslo and Notodden, whose deep knowledge of hydrogen technologies and unstinting support with time and money under-writes the credibility of the conclusions and recommendations for action.
The work was supported and sponsored by
Energistyrelsen (Danish Energy Authority),
Amaliegade 44,
1256 Copenhagen K
www.ens.dk"0 -
Advertisement
-
And could the same not be said of this statement?In your posts, you are very clearly making a set of very simplistic assumptions and calculations to suit your position but I'm afraid they don't show the full picture.Macha wrote:"I don't understand why people get excited about subsidies to the renewable energy industry when the fossil fuel industry enjoys so many more"
And some people demonstrate a simplistic acceptance that building renewables will reduce CO2 emissions.Re: renewables and CO2 emissions, decarbonising the energy sector is one of the key goals in reduction any economy's ghg emissions.
And so are windmills; they were then replaced by waterwheels because the supply could be controlled by use of a sluice gate to meet demand; and then later by fossil fuels.Fossil fuels are a mature industry.
In Germany and Denmark, windpower is a mature industry; we would do well to heed their lessons.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
I have shown that per annum, the fossil fuel industry enjoys more subsidies, to the power of 10 or more than renewables. Your simplistic calculations in a previous post have not refuted this in any way and indeed ignore basic concepts like the impact that subsidies have on energy demand.Chloe Pink wrote: »And could the same not be said of this statement?
When all embodied energy, including from construction phase, is taken into consideration, renewables are far less carbon intensive than fossil fuels. The IEA, an agency that cannot be considered environmental by any stretch of the imagination has argued that removing decarbonising electricity generation must be one of the key pillars of the global energy strategy in the guture.Chloe Pink wrote: »And some people demonstrate a simplistic acceptance that building renewables will reduce CO2 emissions.
But renewables are not just about carbon emissions - they are also about reducing Ireland's €6 billion fossil fuel bill, creating jobs in Ireland, improving our energy security, reducing our reliance on finite fuel sources and reducing our exposure to volatile fuel markets. Here's another idea - how much of the $6 billion that we spend ends up in extremist madrasas in Pakistan via Saudi Arabia? What impact does that have on global security?
Edit: Onshore wind could be considered a more mature market in Germany and Denmark but again you're missing the subtleties and distinctions between things like onshore and offshore wind.
Edit: Some carbon intensity figures from IEMA (in gCo2e/kwh):
Coal 755-1050 (depending on scrubbing)
Oil and Diesel 650-778
Gas 385-500
Biomass 14-93 (From fertilizer production, harvesting, drying and transportation)
Solar PV 32-58 (From extraction of silicon at high temperatures required for PV modules (accounting for 60% of total energy requirement))
Hydroelectric 10-30 (From construction of dams)
Onshore wind 4.64-10
Offshore wind 5.25-9
Both types of wind Co2 is from the manufacturing and construction phases, arising from production of steel for the tower, concrete for foundations, and epoxy/fibreglass for rotor blades (accounting for 98% of total life cyclecarbon dioxide emissions)0 -
If breeder reactors were viable (at present), China would be rolling them out like there was no tomorrow.The decision not to reprocess or burn the waste in breeder reactors is a political one.
Who said nuclear wasn’t an option? Your arguments might carry a little more weight if you spent a little more time reading what people actually post and a little less time dismissing everyone as “Green Lefties”.Anyways while we continue to argue than nuclear is not an option...
The content isn’t.Chloe Pink wrote: »The input is pretty impressive:0 -
just being looking around on this point, most gas turnine electrical generators dont use permanent magnets, they use field coils instead of magnets in the generators
lots of generators don't use permanent magnets.
there is no reason you couldn't build a wind turbine without one. in fact they do exist. there are also motors that can be used in electric cars that don't have permanent magnets in them.0 -
Biomass 14-93 (From fertilizer production, harvesting, drying and transportation)
Solar PV 32-58 (From extraction of silicon at high temperatures required for PV modules (accounting for 60% of total energy requirement))
Hydroelectric 10-30 (From construction of dams)
Onshore wind 4.64-10
Offshore wind 5.25-9
Both types of wind Co2 is from the manufacturing and construction phases, arising from production of steel for the tower, concrete for foundations, and epoxy/fibreglass for rotor blades (accounting for 98% of total life cyclecarbon dioxide emissions)
a lot of those figures will come down further once renewable power generation is more commonIf breeder reactors were viable (at present), China would be rolling them out like there was no tomorrow.
Who said nuclear wasn’t an option?
same is probably true for methane hydrate extraction. if it was that easy everyone would be having a go0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Possibly...there are other factors that could bring down carbon intensity eg using carbon neutral concrete, reusing waste aggregate etc. We really are a very inefficient species.Ghost Estate wrote: »a lot of those figures will come down further once renewable power generation is more common
On the price side, a significant investment in R&D is forecast to have a positive impact on costs. The Carbon Trust estimates accelerated R&D could reduce capex spending by €14 billion in the UK based on a weighted average learning rate of 15%.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89000
Cooling for servers is comparable to air transport.Possibly...there are other factors that could bring down carbon intensity eg using carbon neutral concrete, reusing waste aggregate etc. We really are a very inefficient species.
we can easily build electronics to work at high temperatures http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/display/article-display/107095/articles/military-aerospace-electronics/volume-12/issue-7/features/special-report/plastic-ics-get-hot-in-high-temp-market.html
So yes we can build stuff that will run with an ambient temperature 30 degrees hotter than current stuff, with a corresponding saving in cooling, a lot of places still don't use the heat from the server room to save on heating costs.They shifted temperature guidelines from the full-military temperature range of -55 to 125 degrees Celsius to the industrial temperature range of -40 to 85 degrees C.0 -
To claim that "the fossil fuel industry enjoys more subsidies, to the power of 10 or more than renewables." and to describe as 'simplistic', any attempt to pro rata the subsidies against energy produced, is nothing short of perverse.I have shown that per annum, the fossil fuel industry enjoys more subsidies, to the power of 10 or more than renewables. Your simplistic calculations in a previous post have not refuted this in any way
As you mention 'subtleties and distinctions', you may find this interesting
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/10/denmark-part-iv-co2-emissions/
And do the EIA figures you provide take account of running back up generators for intermittant generators?
And do the EIA figures you provide take account of the new transmission lines to transport renewable electricity from remote locations to centres of demand?
Do you have a link to the report containing these figures?
And isn't there a certain irony that in the case of Denmark, where electricity is exported sometimes at the curtailment of hydro, that one renewable displaces another renewable? Or worse still, if as djpbarry suggests, it is not wind but fossil fuel generated electricity that is exported, that fossil fuel curtails hydro?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
No, what is perverse is quite obviously attempting to make the figures fit into your position.Chloe Pink wrote: »To claim that "the fossil fuel industry enjoys more subsidies, to the power of 10 or more than renewables." and to describe as 'simplistic', any attempt to pro rata the subsidies against energy produced, is nothing short of perverse.
Wow, a free market energy blog not agreeing with renewable subsidies. Whatever next?Chloe Pink wrote: »As you mention 'subtleties and distinctions', you may find this interesting
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/10/denmark-part-iv-co2-emissions/
It is IEMA not the IEA and they come from various sources. You can obtain a full list of references by emailing editor@iema.net. The report is only available online to IEMA members but I can email it to you if you wish to see it.Chloe Pink wrote: »And do the EIA figures you provide take account of running back up generators for intermittant generators?
And do the EIA figures you provide take account of the new transmission lines to transport renewable electricity from remote locations to centres of demand?
Do you have a link to the report containing these figures?
The IEMA figures are, as I wrote in the post, for g/CO2e/kwh per energy. The running of back up generators such as CCGT that can be quickly ramped up and down would be factored into the overall emissions of an economy and would be attributed to that fuel type not renewables. Any energy generated by the back up plants would obviously be exported to the grid to help meet demand with the end result that fossil fuels are still being displaced by renewables.
None of the figures include grid issues, including the fossil fuel figures.
No, it's called balancing the grid. What you need to look at is overall carbon intensity over a wider time scale, not picking out particular moments in the process and complaining about them. It entirely misses the point.Chloe Pink wrote: »And isn't there a certain irony that in the case of Denmark, where electricity is exported sometimes at the curtailment of hydro, that one renewable displaces another renewable? Or worse still, if as djpbarry suggests, it is not wind but fossil fuel generated electricity that is exported, that fossil fuel curtails hydro?0 -
Advertisement
-
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Cooling for servers is comparable to air transport.
we can easily build electronics to work at high temperatures http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/display/article-display/107095/articles/military-aerospace-electronics/volume-12/issue-7/features/special-report/plastic-ics-get-hot-in-high-temp-market.htmlSo yes we can build stuff that will run with an ambient temperature 30 degrees hotter than current stuff, with a corresponding saving in cooling, a lot of places still don't use the heat from the server room to save on heating costs.
With cloud computing server farms can be placed in cooler places, I can only see this trend increasing exponentially, it doesn't make sense to manage a server onsite for most applications (even home users) if you can virtually manage it and rent instead of buying.
The reason we don't have nuclear is the Irish way, we are conservative and pious but not actually knowledgeable or eco conscious.0
Advertisement