Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

[Andreas]

Andreas,

Hope the summer finds you in good health.

I was wondering if you've read into T. Boone Pickens' Wind plan, and if so your thoughts.

Regards,

Hi Kerry

No I haven't. The fundamental point remains though, wind is not a panacea, it has its own issues. The most important one of them at the moment is that if you order a turbine today, you'll get it in 2010.

These are not insurmountable, but they need to be addressed.

All the best

Andreas

[hoolaman]

I am an analyst. My job is not to provide anyone with solutions, only to figure out what the consequences of them are.

I can't resist this one, which hopefully you will appreciate:

A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts, "Excuse me. Can you help me? I promised my friend I would meet him half an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man below says, "Yes, you are in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 40 feet above this field. You are between 46 & 48 degrees N latitude and between 52 & 56 degrees W. longitude."

"You must be an analyst," says the balloonist.

"I am," replies the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct but I have no idea what to make of your information and the fact is I am still lost."

The man below says, "You must be a Manager"

"I am," replies the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

"Well," says the man below, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You have made a promise which you have no idea how to keep and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met but now it is somehow my fault."

[Andreas]

Oldie but goodie!

And it's pretty accurate in my experience.

All the best

Andreas

[John Kettler]

Don't know which is funnier, Andreas's quip or hoolaman's reply! On a related note, back in my aerospace days, I drew jury duty, and one of my fellow pool members had a job similar to mine. Time and again, we'd get called for voir dire, only to be quickly excused. We couldn't help noticing, though, that an aerospace manager who was also in the pool was quickly accepted. Our conclusion? Neither side wanted us because we'd see through the B.S. screen. We had a good chuckle about that.

MSBoxer,

Excellent points! I think, though, you'll find that any effects from tapping some wind pale into insignificance when compared to the profound effects major urban areas exert by their mere presence. These include heat island effects

http://heatisland.lbl.gov/PUBS/APS-PressRelease/

smog and temperature inversions

http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/summer/scor/articles/scor205.htm

skyscraper interactions with winds, as seen in the wind tunnels created in the rebuilding of Chicago following the Chicago Fire there, etc.

Granted, there are lots more people on the planet, and the planet's hotter, but it seems to me that if messing with the wind via harvesting its energy was going to be a problem, mankind would've run into problems during the heyday of the Age of Sail. For then, the harvesting was being done on a grand scale, with fleets of hundreds of ships on a side involved. What powered all those warships and merchantmen back then was simply a different kind of solar power, created by that and the effects of rotational forces, differential heating of the ocean and surrounds, and so forth.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Stalins Organ]

New Zealand is a special case by the way, it is hardly comparable to other electricity markets, especially not larger ones.

Because...we have more wind? Less wind? Different electricity???? We dream of electric sheep??

The general principles are the same - if wind is generating part of your requirements then that's less oil/coal/gas you have to burn or water you can leave in lakes.

If you are a net importer of hydrocarbons then using less of them hits right on the "bottom line" - especially if you are, say, Europe importing billions of cubic feet of gas from Russia...

[JonS]

AIUI, we're one of the very few places that can use hydro for a significant portion. Low popn density, and tiny overall popn, may also come into it. Also, the market is essentially a monopy (which worked pretty well, up till about ten years ago :mad: )

But yeah, more wind means less carbon.

[Andreas]

Because...we have more wind? Less wind? Different electricity???? We dream of electric sheep??

I suggest you study the characteristics of your own electricity supply industry and compare them with others, if you do not want to take my word for it. Sarcasm born out of ignorance is never a pretty sight.

The general principles are the same - if wind is generating part of your requirements then that's less oil/coal/gas you have to burn or water you can leave in lakes.

Yes, but there is a cost to it. It maybe worth paying it, it may not.

If you are a net importer of hydrocarbons then using less of them hits right on the "bottom line" - especially if you are' date=' say, Europe importing billions of cubic feet of gas from Russia...[/quote']

Most of this gas is not actually used for electricity production, so wind is not going to help with it. As was pointed out above, wind will not do a lot to gas use, you still need gas to smooth out variations. It'll pretty much kill coal in Europe if the 20% target for renewables (which translates into ca. 35% in electricity) is achieved. But not gas, it won't make a (edit: significant) dent in that.

Let's check in 2020.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

AIUI, we're one of the very few places that can use hydro for a significant portion. Low popn density, and tiny overall popn, may also come into it. Also, the market is essentially a monopy (which worked pretty well, up till about ten years ago :mad: )

But yeah, more wind means less carbon.

Norway is most comparable to your situation, is my guess. For another small island nation without a hydro endowment, try Ireland. Geography matters, is the conclusion to draw from it.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

For those who are interested, the Spanish grid operator has wind data, current and historical, easily accessible. Spain is the second-biggest wind operating country in Europe, maybe the world (never quite sure where the US is on any given day).

https://demanda.ree.es/eolica.html

You need minimal Spanish. Just pick a date on the calendar, click "consultar oltra fecha", and you see what the key issue with wind is.

All the best

Andreas

[Stalins Organ]

Yeah but hydro is not central to my proposition - which is that wind is a substitute for other generation types when it's available - whether you're substituting hydro or thermal isn't important.

Europe's gas is used for heating,cooking, etc. electricity can also be used for thse - so there IS a link between Europe's gas imports and wind. Russia's squeeze on gas has been part of what has prompted increased interest in nuclear power in Europe - even in Germany - so clearly the Europeans see a link betwen gas and electricity.

And the way the world's economy is going these days it's pretty much energy is energy is energy - whether generated by hydrocarbons, fission, falling water or blowing wind, whether turned into electricity first or not - it'll be used in our homes, factories, cars and iPods.

As you say the economics are always relevant.....but again that's not the point - economics are ALWAYS relevant whatever the situation - it's a given - even here in NZ the economics aer important.

wind substitution for other forms of power is part of an equation - nothing more nor less. New Zealand is not unique in that - although substituting for hydro is unusual.

[Andreas]

New Zealand is special because hydro and wind are the perfect combination. You can easily use hydro to smooth out your wind variations, and you can use surplus wind to run pumped storage in reverse. It does not get any better than that in terms of economics.

While electricity can be used to heat and cook, switching to it has very serious economic and environmental impacts. On both of these counts, under the current conditions electricity is much less attractive in Europe than gas. While there is a link at system-level, it is tenous, so tenous not to matter in policy-making.

Nobody in Europe is thinking that nuclear will replace gas. Currently proposed new nuclear built (with the probable exception of Finland) will replace either:

a) retiring nuclear plant (France, UK, Bulgaria)

retiring coal plant (UK)

c) service additional demand (France, Italy, this is also driving the discussion in Ireland)

And will also be used to drive down the carbon content of the electricity systems. But regardless of how much new nuclear is being proposed (and it is not a lot), new gas plant is still being built at a rapid clip.

What has prompted the resurgence in nuclear is not Russia cutting off gas to Ukraine for one day two and half years ago, it is the realisation that Kyoto targets and post-Kyoto ambitions are going to be impossible to realise without nuclear.

All the best

Andreas

[SSgt Viljuri]

Finland imports about 10 - 30 per cent of her energy from Russia, so additional energy generating capacity is a national security issue, as well as economic and environmental, not just for Finland, but for Sweden and other Scandinavian countries forming a single Nordic energy market.

That and for energy companies there's lots of opportunities to profit from EU's carbon credit schemes, as Andreas probably knows very well. No wonder there's even German energy giants seeking an entry to Finnish energy markets.

[Andreas]

There should be an interview on Finnish public radio with me in the near future, on the question of nuclear, EU energy policy, etc. (no, I am not kidding). Let me know if you listen to it, I'd like to get some feedback - I tried hard to give the journalist some very nice soundbites.

This article is quite interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/business/19wind.html?em&ex=1216699200&en=4a3afc175ae1dbbb&ei=5087%0A

All the best

Andreas

[Stalins Organ]

Nobody in Europe is thinking that nuclear will replace gas.

Apparently they are- http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0106/p06s02-woeu.html

[Andreas]

Sorry, I can't see that statement so clearly anywhere in the article. Unless you interpret Piebalgs in that way, but he could also be talking about forward-looking analysis, i.e. reducing the increase in gas dependence that would otherwise take place. I would point out that he also says nuclear will reduce dependence on oil - which tells me all I need to know about the statement. It is political, not analytical. Piebalgs is a smart guy, he understands the issue - this comment is for public consumption.

So let me rephrase my original statement - nobody who participates in a serious discussion thinks that nuclear will replace gas. Happy now?

All the best

Andreas

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

Haven't see them myself, but T. Boone Pickens, legendary iconic Texas oilman, has been paying for infomercials aimed squarely at the American public in which he charts the story of just how import oil dependent the U.S. has become (now around 70%), calls the resulting stupendous economic outflow "the greatest transfer of wealth in human history" and flatly pronounces the situation "completely unsustainable." If that isn't a bellwether for change and clarion call to energy action, now, I don't know what is. As for your radio interview, good luck with that! I don't speak Finnish, so doubt my feedback would be helpful.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Other Means]

I'm surprised at that Andreas, and I can only think the debate needs to move on another 5 years and people will seriously be talking about replacing all primary energy (except perhaps aviation) generation needs with nuclear power. To achieve Kyoto agreement targets, ensure security of supply and to bring the cost of initial installation per MW down.

One thing I've wondered though, why do nuclear power plants need to be decommissioned? I can understand the pipework wearing out and needing replacing etc - does the shielding start to become radioactive and so it's cheaper to pull it all off and build a new one?

Scary story though, my mate Colin Potter works for the Nuclear Regulatory Agency and when Eastern Europe opened up he used to go and inspect all their power plants. He said they often wouldn't pay the scientists that worked there as they knew they couldn't make it to a safe distance in time if they left, aside from all the other damage.

[Andreas]

I'm surprised at that Andreas, and I can only think the debate needs to move on another 5 years and people will seriously be talking about replacing all primary energy (except perhaps aviation) generation needs with nuclear power. To achieve Kyoto agreement targets, ensure security of supply and to bring the cost of initial installation per MW down.

That's just not possible, technically. Anything beyond 50% is getting you into trouble from a grid-management perspective.

All the best

Andreas

[Soddball]

That's just not possible, technically. Anything beyond 50% is getting you into trouble from a grid-management perspective.

All the best

Andreas

How does France manage their nuclear system?

[Andreas]

By being interconnected to countries with less nuclear. They export a lot of power to the UK, Germany, and in particular Italy, and Belgium.

All the best

Andreas

[Stalins Organ]

Sorry, I can't see that statement so clearly anywhere in the article. Unless you interpret Piebalgs in that way, but he could also be talking about forward-looking analysis, i.e. reducing the increase in gas dependence that would otherwise take place. I would point out that he also says nuclear will reduce dependence on oil - which tells me all I need to know about the statement. It is political, not analytical. Piebalgs is a smart guy, he understands the issue - this comment is for public consumption.

And so it's allowed to be completely wrong?

I don't see how you can say that nuclear can reduce forward gas dependance but not current - certainly there are commercial and infrastructure issues in place, but to say it can't happen as you can is surely seriously closed-minded.

Central Europeans face a shortage of electricity for a couple of years from 2009 due to the closing of old Soviet reactors - see http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Central_Europe_fuels_demands_for_European_nuclear_revival_999.html

So let me rephrase my original statement - nobody who participates in a serious discussion thinks that nuclear will replace gas. Happy now?

I never said it would replace it - at least not completely. However I stand by my comment that increasing nuclear electrical generation can reduce reliance on other forms of fuel. ditto with wind.

I find your thinking very strange indeed.

[John Kettler]

Saw an item today while surfing FT. you know what which said that the U.S., based on best available info, has surpassed Germany to become the world's leading producer of wind-generated power. Doubtless, the huge Texas wind power initiative will further cement that position. Big story on this at MSNBC online.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

I don't see how you can say that nuclear can reduce forward gas dependance but not current - certainly there are commercial and infrastructure issues in place' date=' but to say it can't happen as you can is surely seriously closed-minded.[/quote']

No, it is not close-minded, it is a sign that I know what I am talking about. Are you interested in point-scoring, or in understanding? At the moment it looks like the former, and that is why you get acerbic replies. Once I get the impression that you are interested in a serious discussion, I'd consider spending more time on explaining things to you.

Your continued googling up of facts that are well known to me and that may or may not be relevant is not going to change that.

You trying to teach me about European energy matters is like me trying to teach you about aircraft maintenance. You can accept that or not. I really don't care.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Saw an item today while surfing FT. you know what which said that the U.S., based on best available info, has surpassed Germany to become the world's leading producer of wind-generated power. Doubtless, the huge Texas wind power initiative will further cement that position. Big story on this at MSNBC online.

Regards,

John Kettler

If the tax credit stays I think there is little doubt the US can surpass Germany this year or next.

Here's the article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45827516-5767-11dd-916c-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

One should put that into context however. The US is a 4,300 TWh economy, Germany is a 620 TWh economy. So while the absolute number will become bigger than the German number, the share of production is still much less.

Edit: having said all that, in terms of production, not installed capacity, I would not be surprised if the US were not already ahead of Germany. The economics of windpower (i.e. the average load-factor) is an awful lot better in the US than it is in Germany.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Central Europeans face a shortage of electricity for a couple of years from 2009 due to the closing of old Soviet reactors - see http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Central_Europe_fuels_demands_for_European_nuclear_revival_999.html

Now for the facts on this one:

Lithuania is not Central Europe. Central Europe as a whole does not face electricity shortages. Hungary has a problem that has nothing to do with nuclear shutdown, but with them messing up their energy market. Bulgaria had to shut down four units at Kozloduj, and that creates serious problems in Southeastern Europe, not in Central Europe, and it does so now, not from 2009. But these countries now complaining about the shortages is a bit silly - they knew for years they had to shut these plants down, and did bugger all to deal with it.

My sympathy is strictly limited. Also note that I fail to see how this is relevant to the question at hand - new nuclear build to replace these units would be nuclear replacing nuclear. Not nuclear replacing gas, and they certainly won't build wind to replace them.

All the best

Andreas