Category: Uncategorized

Leaving U.N. climate pact gets boost after 3 straight years of flat global CO2 emissions

Leaving U.N. climate pact gets boost after 3 straight years of flat global CO2 emissions

via Climate Change Dispatch
http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

For the third straight year, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have stalled, fueling the Trump administration’s desire to exit the U.N.’s Paris accord, a scheme to retard global warming. The CO2 estimates come from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which showed the energy and industrial sectors released 32.1 gigatonnes of emissions from 2014 to 2016, […]

via Climate Change Dispatch http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

March 22, 2017 at 08:30AM

By the numbers: Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind Farm

By the numbers: Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind Farm

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Decommissioning of world’s first offshore wind farm offers an opportunity to see how industry costs have changed over the past 25 years.

Guest essay by T. A. “Ike” Kiefer, CAPT, USN (ret.)

Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind Farm

Decommissioning has started at the 26-year old Vindeby offshore project, one of the world’s first The 4.95MW Vindeby offshore project was installed in 1991 using 11 Bonus 450kW turbines. It operated 1.5-3.0km off the southern Danish coast.

The first offshore windfarm in the world has just been decommissioned and is now being torn down ( http://ift.tt/2mVgHNn ). Its lifetime performance specs are illuminating in comparison with recent wind industry data, and alternative generation options.

1991 Vindeby Offshore Wind Farm – Denmark

Years of Operation: 1991-2016 (25)

Capital Cost: 75M Kroner = $13M (1991USD) = $23M (2017USD)

Number of Turbines: 11 @ 450 kW

Lifetime Generation: 243 GWh

Nameplate Capacity: 4.9 MW

Average Power Output: 1.1 MW

Cost/Nampepate Capacity: $2.65/Watt (1991USD), $4.7/Watt (2017USD)

Lifetime Capacity Factor: 22%

Cost/Effective Output: $12/Watt (1991USD), $21/Watt (2017USD)

Levelized Capital Cost: $53/MWh (1991USD), $95/MWh (2017USD)

Levelized VOM Cost: $65/MWh (Estimated using $130/kw-hr industry figures for 2015)

Lower Bound of LCOE: $160/MWh (2017USD)

2015 Industry Performance Data for Offshore Wind (http://ift.tt/1Pp2qji ).

Cost/Nameplate Capacity: $5/Watt

Capacity Factor: 40%

Cost/Effective Output: $12.5/Watt

O&M Costs: $130/kW-yr

Lower bound of LCOE: $150/MWh (2015USD), $154/MWh (2017USD)

 

Conclusions:

1. While turbines are getting larger, able to operate at lower wind speeds, and improving their capacity factors, the total lifecycle cost per unit of energy provided from offshore wind has not perceptibly decreased from 1991 to 2015. Higher costs of O&M for larger turbines farther offshore seems to consume savings from higher capacity factors.

2. As it is uncontrollably variable and weather dependent, offshore wind generation remains uncompetitive with gas and coal which are half the cost (~ $70/MWh LCOE) while providing fully dispatchable and weather-independent power that is of much higher value to a power grid.

NOTE: Somehow, the original posting got deleted. I’m unsure how this happened. Unfortunately, comments that were linked to it disappeared as well. This is the second posting recovered from the original source. -Anthony

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

March 22, 2017 at 08:19AM

Oh noes! Last remnant of ancient North American ice sheet on track to vanish

Oh noes! Last remnant of ancient North American ice sheet on track to vanish

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

From the UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER and the “300 years out canary in the coal mine meme” department, comes this press release with absolute certainty. I tend to ignore any science that uses the favorite phrase of activists “The Barnes Ice Cap is like a canary in a coal mine”. Study involving CU Boulder shows […]

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

March 22, 2017 at 08:00AM

German Physicist On Electric Cars: “Slaying Of Beautiful Hypothesis By An Ugly Fact”

German Physicist On Electric Cars: “Slaying Of Beautiful Hypothesis By An Ugly Fact”

via NoTricksZone
http://notrickszone.com

Though Vince Ebert makes his living as a prominent cabaret artist in Germany, he is in fact a trained physicist who has a good understanding of science and is thus quite able to see it when someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Prominent cabaret artist, physicist Vince Ebert says electric cars nowhere near what they are portrayed to be. Image cropped from Facebook here.

One example is Germany’s “Energiewende” (transition to renewable energies) where Germany is attempting to wean itself off fossil fuels and to supply its energy needs almost completely with green energies such as wind and sun.

One aim Germany has is to convert all its motor vehicles on the street over the electric vehicles. In fact some green politicians have even called for banning the registration of fossil fuel cars by 2030.

So just how feasible (or absurd) is the proposal? Ebert points out in an opinion piece here, that is a lot easier said than done. Clearly the whole idea is in fact quite absurd.

First he notes that electric cars are a long way from having the over 700+ kilometer range of fossil fuel cars and that electric cars reaching that range are “dreams of the future“.

Quarter million wind turbines

Another major obstacle is the lack of charging stations. Even if Germany managed to put merely 1 million electric cars on its streets, Ebert calculates that this would necessitate the construction of 35,000 wind turbines.

However in Germany there are in fact some 6o million vehicles on the road, and “if every driver charged his car for 30 minutes every second day” and did so evenly distributed over a smart grid, “we would need 140 new power plants or 220,000 wind turbines“…which is almost 10 times more than what is already installed.

This is an enormous number — and it would only be enough for the electric cars and not even include the tens of millions of households, businesses and industry that together need even more power than Germany’s transportation sector.

Worse than fossil fuels

Another problem, Ebert points out, is the enormous size of the batteries. In order to replace the 30 liters of petrol of a conventional car, an electric vehicle needs a modern lithium battery weighing some 900 kilograms. Supplying the hundreds of millions of cars in operation worldwide with the lithium and neodymium would be nowhere near sustainable, Ebert writes. He also cites findings by Germany’s renowned Fraunhofer Institute:

Moreover the Fraunhofer-Institute for Structural Physics concluded that the manufacture and recycling of modern batteries has a negative impact on the ecological budget when compared to the fossil fuel engines.”

In a nutshell, electric cars would only make the environment much worse.

Then there are the organizational aspects of using electric car batteries, Ebert reminds us, asking readers to imagine millions of Germans all leaving at once for summer holidays on the autobahns and then all of them trying to charge their vehicles all at once along the motorway after a just couple of hours of driving. Huge traffic jams would form as cars charge up at stations at the rest areas. While a fossil fuel car can fill up in a matter of minutes, electric cars would be blocking the charging stations for an hour or more. It would be total chaos and mayhem.

Ebert summarizes his opinion on the rush to electric cars by quoting biologist Thomas Huxley:

The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

via NoTricksZone http://notrickszone.com

March 22, 2017 at 07:59AM