Comments - Global Coal Consumption Reaches New Record High In 2021…China, India Consuming Two Thirds - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine2024-03-28T09:49:52Zhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A234242&xn_auth=noLynn,
Thank you for the URLs…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2022-01-25:4401701:Comment:2344532022-01-25T03:25:00.430ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p>Lynn,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you for the URLs</p>
<p></p>
<p>That article statement is correct.</p>
<p>A clever analysis, which needs to be spread around</p>
<p></p>
<p>Carbon can be Carbon 12, 13 and 14.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Only Carbon 12 is from combustion of fossil fuels.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Whatever quantities of Carbon 13 and 14 there may have been several hundred million years ago, they have decayed to Carbon 12.</p>
<p></p>
<p>At always, Carbon 14 is continuously produced by solar irradiation.</p>
<p>Lynn,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you for the URLs</p>
<p></p>
<p>That article statement is correct.</p>
<p>A clever analysis, which needs to be spread around</p>
<p></p>
<p>Carbon can be Carbon 12, 13 and 14.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Only Carbon 12 is from combustion of fossil fuels.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Whatever quantities of Carbon 13 and 14 there may have been several hundred million years ago, they have decayed to Carbon 12.</p>
<p></p>
<p>At always, Carbon 14 is continuously produced by solar irradiation.</p> "CO2 ... the little that man…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2022-01-25:4401701:Comment:2343402022-01-25T01:14:27.024ZLynn Oleumhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/LynnOleum
<p>"CO2 ... the little that man has put into the atmosphere...."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Carbon-14 has a half life of about 5,000 years. It is continuously produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Fossil fuels are not exposed to cosmic rays, and therefore contain no carbon-14. By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and the trends of its amounts since 1750 using geologic measurements, Skrable, Chobot,and French concluded that claims that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from…</p>
<p>"CO2 ... the little that man has put into the atmosphere...."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Carbon-14 has a half life of about 5,000 years. It is continuously produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Fossil fuels are not exposed to cosmic rays, and therefore contain no carbon-14. By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and the trends of its amounts since 1750 using geologic measurements, Skrable, Chobot,and French concluded that claims that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels since 1750 cannot be supported.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx" target="_blank">https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx</a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> "URL please"
https://www.res…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2022-01-25:4401701:Comment:2344512022-01-25T00:58:28.011ZLynn Oleumhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/LynnOleum
<p>"URL please"</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254217867_A_Comparative_Analysis_of_Accident_Risks_in_Fossil_Hydro_and_Nuclear_Energy_Chains/link/540ed1380cf2d8daaacdfb13/download" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254217867_A_Comparative_Analysis_of_Accident_Risks_in_Fossil_Hydro_and_Nuclear_Energy_Chains/link/540ed1380cf2d8daaacdfb13/download</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Summary table on page 959.…</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>"URL please"</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254217867_A_Comparative_Analysis_of_Accident_Risks_in_Fossil_Hydro_and_Nuclear_Energy_Chains/link/540ed1380cf2d8daaacdfb13/download" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254217867_A_Comparative_Analysis_of_Accident_Risks_in_Fossil_Hydro_and_Nuclear_Energy_Chains/link/540ed1380cf2d8daaacdfb13/download</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Summary table on page 959.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf</a></p>
<p>Summary table on page 35.</p> As far as I'm concerned, CO2…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2022-01-25:4401701:Comment:2345142022-01-25T00:04:21.990ZThinklike A. Mountainhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/ThinklikeAMountain
<p>As far as I'm concerned, CO2 is plant food and the little that man has put into the atmosphere has done even less to affect the climate. No global warming here in Maine.</p>
<p>As far as I'm concerned, CO2 is plant food and the little that man has put into the atmosphere has done even less to affect the climate. No global warming here in Maine.</p> Lynn,
URL pleasetag:www.windtaskforce.org,2022-01-25:4401701:Comment:2342822022-01-25T00:04:14.634ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p>Lynn,</p>
<p>URL please</p>
<p>Lynn,</p>
<p>URL please</p> "Nothing can compare, except…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2022-01-24:4401701:Comment:2345132022-01-24T23:47:29.916ZLynn Oleumhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/LynnOleum
<p>"Nothing can compare, except reservoir hydro."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Nuclear is safer. Check Paul Scherer Institut's ENSAD database.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Constructing a dam releases more CO2 as a consequence of concrete and steel production than constructing a nuclear reactor having the same output power.</p>
<p></p>
<p>"Nothing can compare, except reservoir hydro."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Nuclear is safer. Check Paul Scherer Institut's ENSAD database.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Constructing a dam releases more CO2 as a consequence of concrete and steel production than constructing a nuclear reactor having the same output power.</p>
<p></p> Lynn,
South Korea, China and…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2022-01-24:4401701:Comment:2343392022-01-24T22:17:03.924ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p>Lynn,</p>
<p>South Korea, China and Russia build modern nuclear plants for about $5000 to $6000/kW, in 5 years</p>
<p>They last at least 60 years.</p>
<p>Nothing can compare, except reservoir hydro</p>
<p>Lynn,</p>
<p>South Korea, China and Russia build modern nuclear plants for about $5000 to $6000/kW, in 5 years</p>
<p>They last at least 60 years.</p>
<p>Nothing can compare, except reservoir hydro</p> There are 52 nuclear power re…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2022-01-24:4401701:Comment:2345112022-01-24T21:15:04.138ZLynn Oleumhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/LynnOleum
<p>There are 52 nuclear power reactors under construction worldwide. Only two in the United States, nearing completion at Vogtle -- which environmentalists want to prevent from opening. Seventeen are under construction in China. Meanwhile, China installs one GWe of coal-fired capacity per week.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Michael Shellenberger documented in "Apocalypse Never" that oil, coal, and gas companies have been paying "environmental" (actually Marxist) groups to oppose nuclear power. Now the…</p>
<p>There are 52 nuclear power reactors under construction worldwide. Only two in the United States, nearing completion at Vogtle -- which environmentalists want to prevent from opening. Seventeen are under construction in China. Meanwhile, China installs one GWe of coal-fired capacity per week.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Michael Shellenberger documented in "Apocalypse Never" that oil, coal, and gas companies have been paying "environmental" (actually Marxist) groups to oppose nuclear power. Now the Bolsheviks have turned on them.</p> EXCERPT from:
BIDEN 30,000 M…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2022-01-23:4401701:Comment:2341612022-01-23T22:33:37.737ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p>EXCERPT from:</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>BIDEN 30,000 MW OFFSHORE WIND SYSTEMS BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY<span> </span></strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p>The Biden administration announced on October 13, 2021, it will subsidize the development of up…</p>
<p>EXCERPT from:</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>BIDEN 30,000 MW OFFSHORE WIND SYSTEMS BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY<span> </span></strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p>The Biden administration announced on October 13, 2021, it will subsidize the development of up to seven <strong>offshore</strong> wind systems (never call them farms) on the US East and West coasts, and in the Gulf of Mexico; a total of about 30,000 MW of offshore wind by 2030.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Biden's offshore wind systems would have an adverse, long-term impact on US electricity wholesale prices, and the prices of all other goods and services, because their expensive electricity would permeate into all economic activities.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The wind turbines would be at least 800-ft-tall, which would need to be located at least 30 miles from shores, to ensure minimal disturbance from night-time strobe lights.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Any commercial fishing areas would be significantly impacted by below-water infrastructures and cables. The low-frequency noise (less than 20 cycles per second, aka infrasound) of the wind turbines would adversely affect marine life, and productivity of fishing areas.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Production</strong>: Annual production would be about 30,000 x 8766 h/y x 0.45, capacity factor = 118,341,000 MWh, or 118.3 TWh of variable, intermittent, wind/weather/season-dependent electricity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The additional wind production would be about 100 x 118.3/4000 = 2.96% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.</p>
<p>That US load would increase, due to tens of millions of future electric vehicles and heat pumps.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This would require a large capacity of combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, to cost-effectively:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Counteract the wind output variations, MW, aka grid balancing</p>
<p>2) Fill-in wind production shortfalls, MWh, during any wind lulls</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Such lulls occur at random throughout the year, and may last 5 to 7 days in the New England area.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>These URLs provide examples of similar wind/solar lull conditions in Germany and New England</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/analysis-of-a-6-day-lull-of-wind-and-solar-during-summer-in-new">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/analysis-of-a-6-day-lull-of-wind-and-solar-during-summer-in-new</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-storage-in-new-england">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-storage-in-new-england</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-lulls-energy-storage-in-germany">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-lulls-energy-storage-in-germany</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/playing-russian-roulette-with-reliable-electricity-service-to-new">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/playing-russian-roulette-with-reliable-electricity-service-to-new</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>High Costs of Balancing the Grid with Increased Wind and Solar:</strong><span> </span>The ANNUAL grid balancing costs are entirely due to the variations and intermittencies of wind and solar, because the OTHER power plants have to operate far from their efficient modes of operation, 24/7/365. They experience:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) More up/down production at lower efficiencies, which have more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh</p>
<p>2) More equipment wear-and-tear cost/kWh, due to up/down production</p>
<p>3) More-frequent plant starts/stops, which have high Btu/kWh, high CO2/kWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Increased wind and solar also requires:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- Increased hot, synchronous (3600 rpm), standby plant capacity, MW, to <strong>immediately</strong>provide power, if wind/solar generation suddenly decreases, or any other power system outage occurs.</p>
<p>- Increased cold, standby plant capacity, MW, to provide power after a plant’s start-up period. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>When wind and solar were only a very small percent of the electricity loaded onto the NE grid, those balancing costs were minimal, sort of “lost in the data fog”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When wind and solar became a large percent, those balancing costs in the UK became 1.3 BILLION U.K. pounds in 2020, likely even more in 2021, 2022, etc.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-balancing-costs-sky-rocket-in-the-uk-due-to-increased-wind">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-balancing-costs-sky-rocket-in-the-uk-due-to-increased-wind</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those balancing costs should have been charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems, but, in reality, they were politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those balancing costs are in addition to the various government subsidies, which are also politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now you all are finally beginning to see just how wonderful wind and solar have been, and will be, for your pocketbook.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Energy systems analysts, with decades of experience, saw this mess coming about 20 years ago, but all-knowing legislators and bureaucrats ignored them, because they were pressured into aiding and abetting the harvesting of federal and state subsidies.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Biden fools adding 30,000 MW of very expensive offshore wind, would be donating a financial bonanza to Europe, because it would make oodles of money, plus it would permanently saddle the US, a trade competitor, with much higher energy costs, in addition to the enormous ANNUAL costs of defending Europe.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A master stroke, in deed, and the US is falling into their very expensive, debilitating trap.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>BTW, Europe <strong>must</strong> have wind and solar, because it imports huge quantities of energy (mostly from unfriendly countries), whereas the US is nearly energy independent</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Turnkey Capital Cost</strong>: The turnkey capital cost for wind systems, plus offshore/onshore grid extension/augmentation would be about 30,000 MW x $5,000,000/MW = <strong>$150 BILLION, excluding financing costs.</strong> Biden’s excessive inflation rates, about 7% at present, surely would increase that cost.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Area Requirements:</strong><span> </span>The 8-MW wind turbines would be arranged on a grid, spaced at least one mile apart (8 rotor diameters), about 1 sq mile per wind turbine. The minimum sea area requirement for 30,000/8 = 3,750 wind turbines would be 3,750 sq miles, or <strong>2,400,000 acres</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Electricity Cost/kWh</strong>: Based on the real-world European, mostly UK and German, operating experience in the North Sea and Baltic, such highly subsidized wind turbine systems:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Last about 20 years</p>
<p>2) Have high maintenance and operating costs, due to the adverse marine environment</p>
<p>3) Produce electricity at an<span> </span><strong>“al-in”</strong><span> </span>cost of about 2 times the<span> </span><strong>“calculated”</strong><span> </span>values</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The “<strong>all-in”</strong><span> </span><strong>wholesale prices</strong> of the offshore electricity of new systems are<span> </span><strong>calculated</strong><span> </span>at about <strong>17 c/kWh</strong>, without cost shifting and subsidies, and about <strong>9 c/kWh</strong>, with cost shifting and subsidies. The shifted costs and subsidies would result in:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Increased tax burdens on taxpayers</p>
<p>2) Increased household electric rates on ratepayers</p>
<p>3) Additions to federal and state government debts.</p>
<p>4) Additional burdens on the owners of traditional generators, because their power plants have to counteract the wind output variations, 24/7/365; the more wind (and solar), the greater the electricity quantities involved in the counteracting, plus their plants have to spend more time on standby, and are required to have more-frequent start/stops. See URLs and Appendix</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-balancing-costs-sky-rocket-in-the-uk-due-to-increased-wind">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-balancing-costs-sky-rocket-in-the-uk-due-to-increased-wind</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: These rates compare with the average New England wholesale price of <strong>5 c/kWh</strong>, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Abundant, domestic, natural gas-fueled CCGT plants, that have: 1) low-cost/kWh, low-CO2/kWh, extremely-low particulate/kWh</p>
<p>2) Domestic, uranium-fueled nuclear plants, that have low-cost/kWh, near-zero CO2/kWh, zero particulate/kWh</p>
<p>3) Long-lasting hydro plants, that have low-cost/kWh, near-zero-CO2/kWh, zero particulate/kWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: Cost shifting and subsidies have <strong>not yet</strong> affected NE wholesale prices, because the percent of new RE (mostly wind and solar) on the NE grid is very small, after 20 years of subsidies.</p>
<p>The image shows the negligeable “contribution” of wind + solar to the NE grid load, during 2021, after 20 years of subsidies!!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Wind and solar became significant in Germany and Denmark after more than 20 years of subsidies, resulting in:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- Politicians excessively allocating RE costs to households, thereby greatly increasing household electric rates.</p>
<p>- Politicians keeping industrial rates artificially low for international competitiveness reasons (a hidden trade subsidy). See URL</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-household-electricity-prices-reach-new-record-high-in-2021">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-household-electricity-prices-reach-new-record-high-in-2021</a></p>