Posted on 10/20/2017 1:59:35 PM PDT by Twotone
It consisted of eleven turbines, each with a capacity of 0.45 MW, giving a total export capacity for the wind farm of 5 MW. The hub height of each turbine was 37.5 m and blade height 17 m, small by today’s standards. Because of its date of construction, it would have been all but totally reliant on conventional energy for its manufacture and installation. The original stated project cost was £7.16 million in 1991, which is equivalent to approximately £10 million today.[2]
During its lifetime, it delivered 243 GWh to the Danish electricity grid. This means that the actual amount of electricity generated was 22% of that which would have been generated if it had delivered 5 MW all the time for 25 years. In technical terms, it had a load factor of 0.22. From the same source we see the initial expectation was that 3506 houses would be powered annually, with a saving of 7085 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum.[3] There was no clear indication of Vindeby’s expected lifetime. Since the average household’s annual use of energy in Denmark[4] is 5000 kWh, we can calculate that the windfarm’s anticipated energy output was 438 GWh over its 25-year lifetime. The actual total of 243 GWh was therefore only 55% of that expectation.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegwpf.com ...
“Texas produces the most windpower and where in the last couple of weeks 3 coal plants were shut down.”
The free market is working. Where wind and solar are economically advantageous, they will thrive. Where they aren’t, they will remain a government scam.
I live in Florida. The government regulations are keeping solar from growing here. Selling excess power back to the power company is almost impossible, making solar a bad economic choice.
Denmark To Build Offshore Wind Turbine Higher Than Eiffel Tower (04/2017).
Natural gas = 33.8%
Coal = 30.4%
Nuclear = 19.7%
Renewables (total) = 14.9%
Hydropower = 6.5%
Wind = 5.6%
Biomass = 1.5%
Solar = 0.9%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Petroleum = 0.6%
Other gases = 0.3%
Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%
Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%4
5.6% from wind; 30.4% from coal. Hmm, look it solar, 0.9% which was the subject of my discussion with the elderly lady. It would appear I am not one who is clueless.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Very helpful explanation. Thanks.
Its a much different story in certain states and the transition has been very recent and some are just getting started. And the shift is mostly in republican states.
And of course the woman that you denigrate was exactly right in that Trump certainly is trying impede the shift away from coal
Yes and rightly so. Solar, Wind, etc. will never meet the needs of the nation. That's what the discussion was, not certain states.
Coal will be a viable fuel for decades to come. It is too vital to be dumped at the political demands of the environmentalists. Eventually, it will be phased out; when there is a viable replacement.
0bama wanted to stop its use by force regardless of the economic hardships millions would face. That is one of the reasons Trumps was elected.
Wind power farms are an aesthetic blight upon the landscape every bit as ugly as a horizon filled with smokestacks and cooling towers.
Nothing at my home works on DC. I am an electrician by trade. All my appliances are alternating currant. It is to costly to turn DC into AC.
Unfortunately, at that time, they didn't realize that they would have to subsidize coal and nuclear: "Pay a Premium" for generated electricity if coal and nukes inventory fuel.
Ten years from now they will have to start subsidizing natural gas. And 10 years after that, they will have to start subsidizing oil.
For now it depends on the transmission lines. Texas rate payers paid for new wind lines(2014) and wind is on the verge of replacing coal.
Now they are just getting the regulatory authority for building the new interstate HVDC transmission lines so the wind states have access to other markets.
Even more so.
Wind-Energy Sector Gets $176 Billion Worth of Crony Capitalism
-- snip
That’s an astounding level of subsidy. In 2014 and 2015, according to the Energy Information Administration, during times of peak demand, the average wholesale price of electricity was about $50 per megawatt-hour. Last winter in Texas, peak wholesale electricity prices averaged $21 per megawatt hour. Thus, on the national level, wind-energy subsidies are worth nearly half the cost of wholesale power, and in the Texas market, those subsidies can actually exceed the wholesale price of electricity.
It was just few decades ago that the clean air act was enacted and they had to begin limiting certain emissions. And it wasn't until 1990 that they had to limit sulfur emissions. And in 2007 SCOTUS ruled that CO2 was a pollutant. But somehow Trump is going change some of these regulations. A power plant can emit 250 tons of Nox and 100 tons of sulfur yearly It looks like he intends to increase NOx.
But you are right about some of those subsidies for renewables although I wouldn't use those numbers that you used. The numbers used by the Tx govt are more accurate.
Plus those subsidies were temporary and now, here and in other parts of the world, they have begun to fall. The point of the subsidies was to achieve economies of scale.
But the pollution subsidies for fossil fuels go on for ever. They never end. And they are going to get worse because Trump is relaxing the standards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.