Waiting for the Knock on the Door

This just in from our friends at Chevron.

-----

WillYouJoinUs Support <support@mail.willyoujoinus.com> to me

5:09 pm (1 hour ago)

Dear User,

Thank you for taking the time to contact us about WillYouJoinUs.com.  We
have forwarded your note to the appropriate department for review.

WillYouJoinUs Support Team

-----------------------------------------------------

WillYouJoinUs.com Support Team

www.willyoujoinus.com

-----------------------------------------------------

Your comments:
I find your estimate of how many wind turbines it would take to power
Paris an interesting one. In particular, I'd like to know why you used
Japanese wind turbines instead of European examples? The German-built 5
MW REpower turbine puts out about 17 GWh at the sub-optimal Elbe River
site and about 25 GWh at a much better off-shore proposed site. Dividing
the 90 billion kWh figure by these two machine outputs you get a range
for the number of turbines for Paris as being from about 5,300 in the
low wind condition to about 3,600 machines for the high wind
installation. That's a fair jump from 20,000 to 73,000 machines
estimated in the source for your advertisement.

Waiting for the Knock on the Door

This just in from our friends at Chevron.

-----

WillYouJoinUs Support <support@mail.willyoujoinus.com> to me

5:09 pm (1 hour ago)

Dear User,

Thank you for taking the time to contact us about WillYouJoinUs.com.  We
have forwarded your note to the appropriate department for review.

WillYouJoinUs Support Team

-----------------------------------------------------

WillYouJoinUs.com Support Team

www.willyoujoinus.com

-----------------------------------------------------

Your comments:
I find your estimate of how many wind turbines it would take to power
Paris an interesting one. In particular, I'd like to know why you used
Japanese wind turbines instead of European examples? The German-built 5
MW REpower turbine puts out about 17 GWh at the sub-optimal Elbe River
site and about 25 GWh at a much better off-shore proposed site. Dividing
the 90 billion kWh figure by these two machine outputs you get a range
for the number of turbines for Paris as being from about 5,300 in the
low wind condition to about 3,600 machines for the high wind
installation. That's a fair jump from 20,000 to 73,000 machines
estimated in the source for your advertisement.

Maybe Not So Ill After All

A recent article in New Scientist, "It's an Ill Wind...", noted a report by an organization which is evidently an opponent to land-based wind in the UK -- the Renewable Energy Foundation -- claiming poor performance for the wind systems currently installed.  Here's the original press release the article, apparently, used as its basis.

Research Brings Clarity to UK Renewables Sector - Renewable Energy Foundation (08 Dec 06)

Other news reports on the report of the report:

'Company's Wind Turbines are Just a Garden Ornament' - The Northern Echo
Wind Farms 'are Failing to Generate the Predicted Amount of Electricity' - The Telegraph (UK)

An interesting counter-response to the New Scientist report of the report on the report posted here:

"It's an ill wind..." - Letter - New Scientist (13 Jan 07)

"The year chosen by the REF gives an average capacity factor of 28.4 per cent - or to put it another way: 'Wind turbines hit government targets by 95 per cent in 2005!'"

And a half-the-story-if-that counter-counter response here:

It's an ill wind...Etherington responds to Ashby - Opinions - Industrial Wind Action Group

"Windpower generation is not an 'all or nothing' 30% but varies continuously and unpredictably."

Actually, wind is not at all random.  Just take a look at any weather predictions for tomorrow that include wind.  How could they do that if it was random? 

Of course, the better the wind predictions, the more useful the wind component will be as it can be properly scheduled.   Neural net software is being used along with data from various wind farms in Europe to provide better estimates of what kind of wind will be available at any given time.

On the other points raised:  The high capital cost per unit of energy is true enough but the big omission in that comparison to fossil plants is that the fuel cost is zero and completely resistant to inflationary pressure.  The other point noted on how there are cheaper ways of reducing CO2 is also fair enough, but I believe the German report being referred to is comparing wind to conservation.  Conservation beats every technology in terms of cost-effectiveness.  Not much traction there either.

The original report that was being spun was also pretty interesting if not exactly rocket science.  Lots of pretty graphs at least.

UK Wind Farm Performance 2005, Based on Ofgem ROC Data - Oswald Consultancy Ltd.

My own conclusions from this report: 

1. Some parts of the UK are a lot windier than others.
2. Don't put up used wind turbines in a built up area if you want to have excellent production numbers (the GlaxoSmithKline's pharmaceutical plant wind turbine example here).

In other words, no real surprises.

Maybe Not So Ill After All

A recent article in New Scientist, "It's an Ill Wind...", noted a report by an organization which is evidently an opponent to land-based wind in the UK -- the Renewable Energy Foundation -- claiming poor performance for the wind systems currently installed.  Here's the original press release the article, apparently, used as its basis.

Research Brings Clarity to UK Renewables Sector - Renewable Energy Foundation (08 Dec 06)

Other news reports on the report of the report:

'Company's Wind Turbines are Just a Garden Ornament' - The Northern Echo
Wind Farms 'are Failing to Generate the Predicted Amount of Electricity' - The Telegraph (UK)

An interesting counter-response to the New Scientist report of the report on the report posted here:

"It's an ill wind..." - Letter - New Scientist (13 Jan 07)

"The year chosen by the REF gives an average capacity factor of 28.4 per cent - or to put it another way: 'Wind turbines hit government targets by 95 per cent in 2005!'"

And a half-the-story-if-that counter-counter response here:

It's an ill wind...Etherington responds to Ashby - Opinions - Industrial Wind Action Group

"Windpower generation is not an 'all or nothing' 30% but varies continuously and unpredictably."

Actually, wind is not at all random.  Just take a look at any weather predictions for tomorrow that include wind.  How could they do that if it was random? 

Of course, the better the wind predictions, the more useful the wind component will be as it can be properly scheduled.   Neural net software is being used along with data from various wind farms in Europe to provide better estimates of what kind of wind will be available at any given time.

On the other points raised:  The high capital cost per unit of energy is true enough but the big omission in that comparison to fossil plants is that the fuel cost is zero and completely resistant to inflationary pressure.  The other point noted on how there are cheaper ways of reducing CO2 is also fair enough, but I believe the German report being referred to is comparing wind to conservation.  Conservation beats every technology in terms of cost-effectiveness.  Not much traction there either.

The original report that was being spun was also pretty interesting if not exactly rocket science.  Lots of pretty graphs at least.

UK Wind Farm Performance 2005, Based on Ofgem ROC Data - Oswald Consultancy Ltd.

My own conclusions from this report: 

1. Some parts of the UK are a lot windier than others.
2. Don't put up used wind turbines in a built up area if you want to have excellent production numbers (the GlaxoSmithKline's pharmaceutical plant wind turbine example here).

In other words, no real surprises.

Adam Smith Would Hate These Guys

The best stupidity money can buy.

"Carbon Dioxide.  They Call it Pollution. We Call it Life." Advertisement
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Watch on YouTube

Adam Smith Would Hate These Guys

The best stupidity money can buy.

"Carbon Dioxide.  They Call it Pollution. We Call it Life." Advertisement
Competitive Enterprise Institute