European countries continue to put the rest of the world (including the United States) to shame in amazing reductions of their use of carbon footprints and the use of clean energy. Last week saw a particularly impressive achievement for Denmark which managed to produce 140 per cent of the country’s electricity needs. In the meantime, the vehemently anti-environmental Administration of Tony Abbott in Australia cracked down on wind power to prevent further investments by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
The excess energy is shared between Germany and Norway and Sweden. These countries and the European Wind Energy Association has made investment into clear energy and are now enjoying the dividends of cleaner environments, technology sales globally, and a reduction of the carbon emissions that are threatening the very future of this planet.
While wind levels have been higher than usual, Denmark is on track to reach its goal of producing 84 per cent of it’s electricity needs through wind power by 2035.
That is in stark contrast to the situation over in Australia where Abbott continues his determined effort to rollback on environmental protections — an administration that has caused international protests over the damage to pristine areas. We have been discussing the horrific environmental record of Abbott. This includes the decision to dump millions of tons of waste into the Great Barrier Reef. The move that led to international outcry including official condemnation from UNESCO. Much of the criticism has been directed at Abbott putting industry officials in charge of environmental decision-making with predictable results.
Now the Abbott Administration, which has close ties to the mining industry, is moving against wind power. Despite another threat to international investment, Abbott’s government has ordered the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation not to make any new investments in wind power projects. Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann have told the Corporation to change its investment mandate to bar new wind funding. The move is viewed as a major blow to the wind industry in the country.
Appropriately, Hockey used an appearance on the show of a Sydney radio shock jock to publicly denounce wind farms as “utterly offensive.” Abbott signaled the change with his own objection to the windmill as “visually awful”. Of course, the predictions of global disaster do not appear to be quite as visually offensive for Abbott.
I am always amused when advoates of this or that compare a tny place like Denmark to places the size of the USA, Canada and Australia. They must not be aware of a thing called exconomies of scale. No matter, once dominent, you bet your sweet bippy that the orignal power “oligarchs” will crush the smaller outfits and rule energy …. will almost be a seamless event. And all of it will cost more without a parallel increase in other productivlity…e.g., income for Joe Sixpack. Enjoy.
High rises kill birds. Utility wires kill birds. Cats kill birds. Logging kills birds. Oil spills kill birds. Hunters kill birds.
the only thing stopping solar and wind is the fact that they can’t provide base load electricity. Isaac, you really are out of your league here. Wishing for something to be true doesn’t make it so. You know what is really good for the economy? Cheap carbon based fuels. Carbon based fuels are still the way to go even after the govt. does everything in its power to hinder it. Look how awesome natural gas is despite all the road blocks. I’m all for removing all subsidies as well as all of the red tape and taxes, but you wouldn’t sign up for that would you. Also, your whole premise is based on your govt. telling you that the science is settled. And who is the tool/idiot here?
David asked you a question and you know the answer too. You are not on renewables only because you know they don’t work without the consistency that true base load electric plants provide.
Solar and wind does reduce the use of coal to produce electricity. With the hundreds of acres of flat roof tops in all the cities across the South solar can viably offset draws on electricity for air conditioning. This is without subsidies. Coal, oil, and natural gas receive billions in subsidies. The US pays the least of all the developed countries for fossil fuels. Pollution kills far more birds and other animals including humans than wind turbines.
The only thing in the way of solar and wind development in the US is the status quo: guys like the Koch bros, the power companies that lose contributions to their network every time someone goes offline, the coal companies, etc. The proof of this is that it is an industry that is more than viable in countries that don’t have the oil and gas reserves.
The argument that is based on replacing fossil fuels with renewables as being not realistic is one used by idiots. One doesn’t replace an entire system. One lowers the dependance little by little. Already it has been proven that the more electricity that comes from renewables the less is needed from coal, the dirty stuff.
The renewable energy industry is good for the economy. It creates high paying jobs. The industry is proven and will only grow. The reduction of coal use can only be good. As time goes by and the statistics and proofs pile up the naysayers appear more and more like who they really are, idiots who are missing the bus.
pinandpuller:
I just watched Episode IV the other night!
Isaac:
Many years ago I read a paper where someone had managed to incorporate micro solar cells into roof top tiles. They were indistinguishable from regular tiles. I thought by now they would be ubiquitous, and no more large black futuristic panels atop roofs. But I never heard anything more about it.
John and wonderer – you are both correct. The article failed to point out why Australia has a more difficult time with solar than Denmark, and that the energy cannot be stored. So it’s not really producing all its own energy from wind, as the title suggests.
Alicia, “Silent Spring” was a false book.
Windmills need to be tall to get through what is called a boundary layer. The velocity of air movement goes to zero as you approach the land surface.
Mike, I didn’t mean to imply that I thought the Thorium car was around the corner. I actually talked to the president of the company researching it. I came away from the conversation thinking why start with the car? It would seem like starting with a train would make more sense.
Whenever I hear “electric car” I lose interest. Charging times, distance, batteries and climate make it very unappealing.
The novel ‘Silent Spring’ was about the effects of pesticides on birds. Now every time I see a windmill generator ‘farm’ I think of that book. Bye-bye bald eagles and others. Maybe the roadrunner can become the national bird 😉
Also, I wish the windmills were not so big, but just about all industrial equipment has to be practical rather than appeal to aesthetics. The windmills are like 3D graffiti on the landscape. Too bad they can’t be in the cities where they would fit in better.
Wonderer, Bingo! Finally someone who understands base load.
My goodness, but the headline is misleading. 116%??? Later on it says,
While wind levels have been higher than usual, Denmark is on track to reach its goal of producing 84 per cent of it’s electricity needs through wind power by 2035.
Sooo, if in 20 years it is projected to reach 84%, then the 116% headline is false advertising.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The druggie people are in New York. That is why they say “turdy turd and a turd” instead of 33rd and a 3rd.
How come there is no solar or wind power in Greece? Their lead yakker says that they are on the cutting edge.
Free tobacco for Greece. Get the death rate up. l
What would the Donald say about this energy topic?
Seems a lot of people don’t really understand electricity and electrical power. There’s (currently) no viable, scalable storage mechanism, so electricity is and must be used at the moment it’s produced. Since wind and solar are variable, they’re not reliable for meeting the power needs of a modern society, at least not in CA where I live. On the hottest afternoons when electricity demand is highest, it’s hot because the wind isn’t blowing. Solar is also somewhat temperature sensitive, and efficiency of panels (I’m told) decreases somewhat with the higher temps.
All of that creates two additional problems. First, there needs to be standby generation that can be brought on line pretty quickly to replace the intermittent resources. Since the high demand means all of the regular “base load” generators are already at maximum output, other plans need to be pressed into service. These are often plants that are sitting there not producing energy most of the time, so their costs need to be amortized during the relatively brief periods when they’re pressed into service. That makes them heinously expensive. They’re also the plants that are older and not as clean-burning.
Denmark benefits from both pretty stable winds, but also connection to the larger European grid for those times when the wind stops. As others have noted, they also have the luxury of tapping their carbon revenues (hypocritically exporting pollution, IMHO) to subsidize their vaunted wind/renewable efforts.
Bruce, I think you might be thinking of the Dutch (The Netherlands), not the Danes (Denmark), as the druggie people.
The comparison is ludicrous, but it takes a little closer read of the energy situation than you get from a press release from the wind energy consortium. First the 116% doesn’t mean what you think it does – the hoped-for 84% target, more realistic, is to be met from more laws mandating greater percentages, and more subsidies to meet it,
Denmark is a fortunate country: a small country, cool climate with minor air conditioning needs (compared to Australia), nearly half of its energy needs coming from coal – not wind – and a significant portion coming from its extensive North Sea oil and gas assets. Being a fossil fuel energy exporter, Denmark has the good fortune of setting aside some of their carbon profits into supporting and expanding their wind power generation, clean electricity fed into the European grid, which may soon actually yield profits, as long as the subsidies and other market distorting measures are kept up and expanded in the rest of the EU.
What makes much of this possible is the French. With their extensive network of nuclear power plants, and a robust electrical grid system that should be the envy of the US, the French provide a reliable chunk of the firming power to Europe (even into some of the Slavic countries). Especially in the evenings and overnight when local demand slows, industry, cities, and energy pump-back projects can take advantage of this cheap and abso9lutely reliable electrical power source off of peak demand periods to help them build their solar and wind facilities. Truly win-win, as Isaac says.
Australia, poor Australia, lacks a 10,000 mile long power line to France. They are relatively resource poor, other than for coal, and wind and solar energy schemes are difficult to fit into a country that only spans 3 time zones and has an inherent inability to obtain firming power from an international electrical grid. Firming power for huge electrical demands from air conditioners in Australia, which need to run in the evenings too, would be a head scratcher for people in Denmark. That demand is largely met by coal burning. Despite the diatribe hurled by JT here, Australian per capita demand has been declining, largely from increased conservation and efficiencies. Although nuclear energy production is now zero, Australia has significant uranium resources that could, and should, receive the attention that renewable energy gets. When they get their firming power down from other than carbon sources, then they should use their time and money supporting the peaking power infrastructure that Denmark can now afford.
Isaac, I assume your remark “yeah, vote Republican” was sarcasm at the false stereotype that Republicans are not interested in clean energy. Maybe you forget about T. Boone Pickens, an ardent Republican, who zealously got fully behind wind energy in Texas. His enthusiasm mellowed when he lost a billion dollars.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/wind-investments-blow-pickens-off-the-forbes-400-list/
David,
People like isaac don’t understand what base load power is.
Mike,
Amen, I’ve been following and preaching LFTR design for years. There is even potential for LFTR designs for vehicles.
@ Jim22 – Sorry, but the thorium-powered car is unscientific rubbish. The “inventor” (read: con artist) is trying to ride the coattails of the “thorium craze.” Besides, no country is going to allow a reactor on wheels on their highways.
The way to power a car with thorium is to charge an electric car with a thorium reactor-powered electric grid.
(Thorium can indeed power the planet, but a fission reactor – powered by thorium, uranium, or plutonium – can’t be shrunk down to vehicle size. The fuel mass required for a fission reactor, and the shielding for the core, can only be downsized to about the volume of a 40′ container, if that, and would probably weigh 100 tons, mostly from the shielding.)
Isaac wrote: “Solar is now comparable with fossil fuels.”
Isaac, do you drive a solar powered car? Is your home powered by wind alone? If not, why not?
There is enough thorium thrown away while mining the neodymium used for wind turbines to power the entire planet with carbon-free energy.
Google: thorium energy, molten salt reactor (MSR), liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR)