The University of Oklahoma has recently signed a contract with Oklahoma Gas and Electric, committing the University to paying above standard tariff rates for green electricity. These rates, paid in increasing amounts up to 2013 will form wind energy credits which in turn will help provide funds for a new “OU Spirit Wind Farm” wind energy project near Woodward.
In the past there has been a perception that people are not prepared to pay more for green electricity. This has changed recently along with the realisation that dealing with the effects of climate change is important for future generations.
The University of Oklahoma alongside other commercial companies such as UK supermarket Sainsbury’s demonstrate that there is a clear demand for electricity generated by renewable sources such as wind energy. However is it fair that only the companies and people with a green conscience pay?
The European and UK systems means that everybody pays either through a fixed supplementary element added to the price of electricity or through a combined legal requirement and reward for green electricity system – the “Renewables Obligation“. It is important that people accept renewable energy as the way forward however it also needs to be understood that clean energy solutions are essential and not a luxury we can only afford when we have the money.
Sandy Chan
December 29th, 2008
Thank you for this post. Renewable energy is a term used to describe energy that is derived from resources, like the sun and the wind resources that are continually available to some degree or other all over the world. We never run out of them. And their use or capture does not inflict any material damage on the environment, but it seems it is affecting on the environment either direct or indirectly. We are the group working on Global Warming and Green World and spreading the benefits of this to many of them with the help of Internet and many sites… Recently i liked JustMeans.com, nice platform to share and debate on Green and Corporate Social Responsibility. Justmeans is where individuals can talk to organizations about their social and environmental initiatives and stay updated on CSR news and jobs. Please do spread the word and save the world.
Alexander
December 29th, 2008
Wind power is not a solution.
The whole truth about wind turbines is never told by lobbyists and governments.
How could the very weak and extremely unreliable initial energy source of a wind turbine ever produce a steady power of any significance?
Please think!
And read: “Wind energy- the whole truth” at: windenergy-the-truth.com/
And to show how completely irrelevant wind power is in regard to the worldwide energy and climate crisis visit the following link: http://www.bp.com/iframe.do?categoryId=9024179&contentId=7044895
And play around with the charts you see there (The BP charts regarding energy reserves and energy consumption worldwide over the last 20 to 40 years.) and make some calculations. And if you don´t get confused with the zeros, you will get my point.
The resources now poured into futile, but very ingenious and high-tech windmills, could be far better used for, for example:
1) Burning coal in a cleaner way,
2) Efficiency of energy use in the broadest sense of the word
3) Promoting a drastic change of life style (There are about 6.5 billion people, who all have the right to have some energy to their disposal).
Just 3 ideas.
Alexander
Vicky Portwain
December 30th, 2008
I do not know why anti- wind farm campaigners use subjective terms like “weak” and “unreliable” for wind energy. It is easy for people to check out the facts and decide for themselves what they think of the electricity production. A modern wind turbine in the UK will generate 4700 MWh per year (2 Megawatt turbine with a 27% capacity factor). A wind turbine will provide enough electricity for around 1- 1,500 homes. This is a good measure as it allows people to consider and balance for themselves the impacts of wind turbines compared with the electricity generation benefits.
A study by Oxford University concluded that concerns about wind farms not generating for long periods of time all at once when calm conditions extend across the UK are unjustified. The study found that the UK was never entirely calm and without wind, and that a diversified portfolio of wind energy developments would deliver electricity during all hours.
The burning of coal still uses finite fossil fuels. I agree we need to be more energy efficient – but we cannot just rely on this. “Efficiency of Energy use” in the broadest sense is already being pursued and does not negate the need for renewable energy either.
Alexander
January 3rd, 2009
Vicky, rest assured, I am as worried about the environment as you are. If wind-energy would really be the solution for the worlds energy predicament I would be one of its biggest and most enthusiastic promoters. I have kids and I am very worried and perhaps a little ashamed in what state we left them the earth for their future. During the last decades we trashed nature and we (the developed and developing countries) polluted the environment in such a way that the earth as a whole, as our only habitat in the universe, is in a very bad shape (Perhaps we are the last generation that can still (perhaps) avoid a real doomsday scenario). And when you realize that now the following countries like China (1.3 billion people) India (1.1. billion people) Russia (only 200 million but what are they going to do?) Brazil (300 million) are going to require their fair share of energy I only see a very bleak picture for the future.
Vicky I think you are as honestly worried as I am. And I tell you, it hurts me to be shoveled in the group of the “subjective anti- wind campaigners”. Like I won´t shovel you into the group of “subjective pro- wind farms campaigners”. But I am of the honest opinion that the devious part of the “subjective pro- wind farm campaigners” has been misleading the general public in a grand scale to promote their cause for personal profit or political dividend all paid for by the innocent tax-payer. And you have to agree with me that their “so called” solution regarding generating energy with no pollution what so ever is an REALLY EASY SELL, because everybody wants that. Like for instance selling to you :’’ A modern wind turbine in the UK will generate 4700 MWh per year (2 Megawatt turbine with a 27% capacity factor). A wind turbine will provide enough electricity for around 1-1,500 homes.” Because that is peanuts, compared with our real energy requirements. The devious part of the “subjective pro- wind farm campaigners” never explain what the real energy needs of a modern society are.
To give you a glimpse (and not to bore too much with all kinds of technical details) of what I mean please read a post of mine from another blog. By the way James is the person I am having a discussion with on the other blog. James, “The Windmiller”, let’s start with your remark #3 and my so called “utter nonsense”. There is not one single country in the world that has 10 % of energy coming from renewable’s. So that is UTTER NONSENSE from your side. And only by that statement you show you have no clue about energy (I will come back on that later in my post). Denmark, probably the most “advanced” country in the world in respect to Wind energy does not even use is its own wind energy because its grid cannot handle it! They sell it as surplus to Germany. Don’t believe it? Visit for instance (there are many places where you can find that information): aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html and read the annual reports of E.ON a big German player in wind power.
“Windmillers” never make it clear that when you build a wind farm you need an equal sized conventional power plant for the times that de wind does not blow. Of course with the exception of those “Windmillers” who live in “La LA Land”, where the lights are on and the trains ride only when the wind blows. And of course “La La Land” doesn’t have any industry and or transportation but let’s talk real energy and take the US as an example. We are going to talk QUADS per year. A QUAD is the energy unit the US government uses when it talks seriously about energy. For your information: 1 QUAD is 1x 10 to the power of 15 BTU’s or 1.055 x 10 to the power of 18 Joules. Have a look at the diagram at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USEnFlow02-quads.gif (Of the: The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
There you will see that in 2004 the US used 99.38 QUAD of energy. Of which 37.24 Quad is used for electricity generation which resulted in a mere 11.9 Quad of useful electricity. And a 26.3 Quad was lost in Electrical system energy losses (inefficiency) and is only good to increase the entropy of the universe. The remaining (99.38 – 37.24) = 62.14 Quad were used (and a big part lost again because of inefficiency) for other purposes, like for instance industry (have you ever visited a steel plant or a paper mill?), transportation, and other residential uses.
Actual reserves in years of the to-days use of energy resources:
Coal: 133 years (US is sitting on the biggest reserve in the world)
Uranium: 80 years (Biggest reserves in Australia and Kazakstan and the US a far trailing third)
Oil: 42 years (67% of these reserves are in the Middle East and Russia!)
Gas: 60 years (66% of these reserves are in the Middle East and Russia!)
And now Barry “The Windmiller” tells me that China is planning for 40 Nuclear power plants. The fact is that in China during the last years and into the foreseeable future is bringing 2 power plants on line PER WEEK. (check at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Electricity.html ) What do you think what all the non nuclear plants burn? Please realize that China’s energy consumption per capita year (1.3 billion capita) is: 2.200 kWh compared with the 12.881 kWh in the US. Don´t forget India with its 452 kWh per capita and it’s 1.1 billion capita. Do you have any idea what it will do to the number of years of reserves (despite the fact we will find some) if those countries go to 30 % energy consumption per capita of the US ? (By the way France produces 70% of its electricity needs with nuclear power for many years now and has hardly any windmills.)
James, do you really want to throw coal out without making a serious attempt to solve the problem regarding the clean burning of the biggest energy resource reserve the US has completely under its control and you want to “windmill” the US out of this predicament? WAKE UP!
Now I hope you understand what I mean with efficiency in the broadest sense of the word.
Vicky , did you get an idea of the size of our world wide energy
problem?
Thanks for reading it all.
Alexander
Vicky Portwain
January 3rd, 2009
All renewable sources provided 4.98% of the electricity generated in the United Kingdom in 2007, 0.43 percentage points higher than in 2006. This figure is not insignificant. I agree with you that there is a huge problem and a big energy gap that needs to be filled. I am not saying the renewable energy can fill this on its own but it certainly has to be part of the solution, along with other technologies. Renewable energy and in particular wind energy is a fundamental part of the energy mix.
I looked briefly at the blog you referred to me http://www.aweo.org but it does not appear fully referenced unless I am not looking in the right place (the Norway study?, who is Richard S Courtney?) and contains misleading information. Many coal fired power stations can be ramped up and down – in fact they are specifically designed to do this – what do you think happens on Christmas day when everyone switches their kettles on? Generating electricity from wind is all about offsetting carbon emissions not closing down power stations. I note as an aside from your “Windfarms provide no useful electricity” page that one of the references is from an RWE spokesperson – one of, if not the biggest carbon emitter in the world and very much lover of lignite power stations- although despite this fact they are still developing wind farms in the UK, even though all the benefits are lost? (- not straightforward and probably not the best reference source).
The fact that Demark imports and exports electricity from different forms of energy generation shows that pan-country markets for renewable energy can be developed – this is good and positive – I am not sure why you see this as a negative. Furthermore using energy losses as a reason against renewables is misguided. A well designed and dispersed network of renewable energy projects of different scales could mean energy generation closer to demand – thereby reducing losses.
This really does come down to a moral issue. Yes the problem we face is much bigger that many people understand given the level of future predicted energy demand – I do not dispute this point. However are you prepared to stand by and do nothing when it comes to generating energy from renewable sources? Perhaps you could come up with some real solutions rather than being so negative about the technologies such as wind energy that do successfully offset harmful gases and are financially and technically viable.
Alexander
January 16th, 2009
Vicky at metaefficient.com “record worlds largest wind turbine 7 megawatts” you will find a interesting discussing regarding the futility of WIND Power. I would appreciate your comments.
Below a copy of my latest post there:
“Bernd Our discussion is becoming completely senseless, whacking each other around the ears regarding which report is more reliable. The European Wind Integration Study (EWIS) is as reliable and gives a much better idea of the magnitude of the problems wind power generates to have it integrated in a Pan European Electricity Grid. And the Facts about the German Electricity Grid in the Vattenfall report shows where the money goes, when you pay your electricity bill in Germany.
But this is all totally irrelevant when you realize that:
1) Today humanity uses 426 Quads (426.000.000.000.000.000 BTU) of energy per year, of which the lion’s share comes from burning coal. (50 % worldwide, I don’t think that is a very bad estimate)
That means: 213.000.000.000.000.000 / 20.000.000 (This is the amount of BTU one ton of coal produces when burned.) = 10.650.000.000 tons of coal are burned by humanity every year. With the result that we are pumping 10.650.000.000 x 2.86 (burning one ton of coal produces on average 2.86 tons of CO2 (plus a lot of other harmful stuff)) = 30.459.000.000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year.
2) In ten years time humans will “need” or use 150 Quads more, thinking about the 3 billion people in the fast developing countries like China, India, Indonesia, Russia, etc., sitting on very big coal reserves!
3) Global warming has set in and one of its major contributors is CO2. Our days are counted if we don’t do anything about it!
In my opinion it will be impossible to take coal out of the energy equation for the next 100 years, because all the renewables (now worldwide probably a energy contributor of less than 3 %) will not be able to off-set the amount of energy produced from coal and coal is the most available fossil fuel in those fast developing populous countries. Social pressures will force those fast developing countries to burn coal anyway (in a clean or dirty way). Wars have been fought for much sillier reasons. Therefore I am of the opinion that we have to develop the technology to burn coal in a clean and environmental friendly way, despite the extreme difficulties and extremely high costs. We cannot deprive humanity today of about 213 Quads (halve of its energy “needs” or usage) and we cannot go-on burning fossil fuels as we do today without destroying the global climate completely. Both ways (depriving or dirty burning) will bring war, death and mass extension for humans. I am of the opinion that all resources spend on Wind Energy is a waste of time and resources because it only tackles 4 % of our total energy problem in about 15 years time ! ( 20 % of our total energy needs go to electricity generation and the politicians want 20 % of our electricity from Wind Power in about 10 to 15 years time. 20% of 20% = 4%)
These resources could be used in a much better and effective way. By for instance:
1. Informing the general public about our real energy needs and explain how much we waste.
2. Educating the general population how to save energy.
3. Creating a real awareness about everybodies personal footprint and make it a national and global sport to make those individual footprints as small as possible, through schools and television programs (EDUCATION)
4. Going for the technology to burn coal (and other fossil fuels) as clean as possible. Humanity is going to burn them anyway.
5. Plasma Fusion and Super Conductivity are the only technologies that really can get humanity out of its energy predicament. But it will take decades before we have those technologies available.
For me Wind Power is as ridiculous as putting sails on 300.000 ton Super Tankers to of-set 4 % bunker oil by WIND Power. (And when you make some simple calculations you will see that this ridiculous idea is of the same order of magnitude as Wind Power!)
A great consolation for me during our discussions was the book I was reading by Richard Dawkins called: “The Ancestor’s Tale, A pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution”. There it becomes completely clear that life will go-on on earth with or without humanity. But I would appreciate it if we (humans) could be part of life on earth in the future.”