Wind Energy - "green energy" scam?

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Helicopters to the wind turbine rescue

In case it has not been mentioned earlier (?) I do not know - but I heard yesterday, via german Nuoviso.tv during their 95th session called “Home Office” that the frozen wind turbines in Germany lately - especially near the Baltic Sea in the north - require that expensive helicopers have to pour antifreeze solvents onto them, in order to get them working (?) again. There is a pool of 100 helicopters for that very purpose.

The tale of green energy, saving CO2, saving the climate and so on - is such a joke ... at so many levels. :scared:

It just hits me... I wonder, how the wind turbines are handled during winter in Sweden ?! I have absolutely no clue...

Yes, there are many pics about this on the net from previous winters. Sounds like a great idea: Have fuel-hungry helicopters poor chemicals on wind turbines to generate power to save the planet :headbash: Plain incompetence paired with greed and ideology... We probably will see more blackouts in the near future...
 

Gawan

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Yes, there are many pics about this on the net from previous winters. Sounds like a great idea: Have fuel-hungry helicopters poor chemicals on wind turbines to generate power to save the planet :headbash: Plain incompetence paired with greed and ideology... We probably will see more blackouts in the near future...

Here is such a video from several years back:


And pretty efficient, eh :halo:.
 

Metrist

Dagobah Resident
Energy supply is reserved for industry. And industry influences govt. to assist in keeping it as exclusive as possible.
Well, our electrical appliances are getting very efficient, and industries grip on its exclusivity is waning, so, they have to create alternatives they too control. And of course, as efficiency is the bane of consumption, it is even more important to tightly control it.
So these green industries facilitate being competitive, not necessarily giving benefit from the efficiency of our modern technologies, which make green industries possible, but it works to keep the prices and availability controlled. It doesn't matter which who sells power, it will be kept as high as people will pay. So, green technologies aren't a failure of themselves, it is the monopoly of power, and controlling it to keep the prices at a standard - without regard to the means which it is generated. If the means to generate it were important, many would take the initiative to generate their own, as we can do this now. So green energy is a crippled alternative to energy monopolies that are not meant to create savings, but energy sold in a different package - at competitive prices that are standardized.
 

Persej

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Here is another green fiasco. The fiasco was actually caused by, so far still not fully disclosed, problem with coal plants. But that's another story. So the authorities believed that they will be saved by the wind turbines, but the wind was not blowing so we not only had to import the energy because the coal plants were not working, but also because the wind generators were not spinning, because there was no wind, and we needed an extra energy just to balance the system for this green energy.

Money thrown to the wind​


The security of wind and solar electricity supply is best shown by the example of EMS, which these days had to import the most expensive emergency electricity because there was no green energy on the network.

Two days ago, at an open session of the Government of Serbia, Jelena Matejić, Director General of the Electric Network of Serbia (EMS), explained that this company had to pay for emergency electricity from imports at a price of 330 euros per megawatt-hour due to wind balancing, and we even didn't have the electricity. Therefore, the question arose as to what is the benefit of green energy, if even in the most difficult moments, such as these when there is not enough coal for the product of electricity, it cannot help. Except to make an extra expense.

Matejic clearly explained that this company is very careful about non-inert energy sources that can endanger the system, such as wind and solar energy.

- If they exceed 20 percent of the total portfolio of one country, it is very difficult to balance the system. Unfortunately, these days we had and will have the opportunity to see what it means to have energy from the wind that dropped to zero, then to three megawatts to a full 50, which caused us the necessary costs to buy emergency electricity that costs up to 330 euros - said Matejic.

To clarify the whole thing, the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, asked if that meant that we paid and spent money due to balancing the wind, and we got nothing, to which the director of EMS answered in the affirmative. She added that there were moments when something was on the system and when consumption was covered, but unfortunately it happened day by day that we had an announcement of this energy, but it was not there. And then you are in a horrible situation to import the most expensive electricity.

- I listened to all possible ecologists and foreigners. I regret that I listened to them at all and I knew they were lying - said President Vučić after that.

The story that green energy, wind and sun cannot replace coal, which is the main topic of Serbia these days, has been confirmed again. Because, soaked, mixed with tailings and mud, it led to the shutdown of a large number of blocks in the "Nikola Tesla" thermal power plant. The question is rightly whether the money from the feed-in tariff (incentives given by the state to investors for the production of green energy) should have been used smarter. For the construction of new modern thermoblocks. As well as whether the funds of all of us who pay the same investors every month through electricity bills to build wind farms and install solar panels, to which the Ministry of Energy invites them every day, have been thrown into the water. Looks like they are.

Asked what the purpose of green energy is after all the above, except to satisfy someone's expensive interests, and that Serbia does not have electricity when it lacks, Prof. Dr. Milan Radunović, a senior consultant in the engineering company Energetski sistem "Integrator", answers that it is now showing in the best way that the story about the benefits of renewable sources, their importance in energy terms, is a big failure.

- That approach was implemented by the administration, not the energy companies. It turned out that Germany had to activate thermal power plants because there was not enough wind to provide energy. The same is true in Spain. So, in order for Serbia to enable energy security, it must rely on the resource it has, that is coal - our interlocutor is categorical.

Thermal power plants cannot be judged on the basis of our existing ones. Due to age, low efficiency (they consume a lot of coal for one megawatt, they are big polluters). Therefore, replacement capacities for coal should be built, based on new combustion technologies, high efficiency, low pollution. Circular economy, he adds.

Serbia needs 500 megawatts of replacement capacity twice. This would be a condition for the sustainability and security of the system, but also a contribution to decarbonization, because tens of thousands of tons less coal would be burned for the same amount of energy, and the efficiency of boilers would be high.

He cites the example of Poland. In the period when they started the transition ten years ago, they built 7,000 megawatts of capacity by applying new technologies. And their base energy is dependent on coal.

- We distinguish between base and balance energy. A baseline is something that provides system and balance security that complements needs but also supports renewables. The basic rule of operation of the energy system (electricity) is that at all times the needs of consumers must be equated with the possibilities of supply. The possibility of supply implies production from own capacities or from imports. When you plan, in the production diagram you start with the base energy you can produce. Green energy opportunities are added to that. It must be planned whether the wind is blowing, whether there is sun for the solar system. If that is not the case, then we go for import - says prof. Dr. Radunović.

When giving great importance to renewable sources, the fact was not taken into account that for every megawatt of wind or solar, we must have balancing energy at all times, energy that is used when there is no wind or sun. So that green cannot replace coal, emphasizes prof. Radunović.

 

Persej

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Interesting article about the current energy crisis in Europe:

Why LNG Won't Fully Replace Russian Gas In Europe

Europe became the largest customer of U.S. producers of liquefied natural gas recently, taking in more than 50 percent of total U.S. shipments over the last three months. But U.S. LNG, as well as LNG from other sources, would only provide short-term relief.

For starters, there are the long-term contracts that all LNG producers in the U.S., Australia, and Qatar already have with other buyers.

Then there is the question of insufficient LNG import capacity in Europe. Germany has announced a decision to urgently build two LNG terminals—the country has none currently—but chances are they will not be ready in a month or two. For context, building an LNG export terminal takes three to four years. Import terminals don’t need liquefaction trains, but they do need regasification facilities.

Finally, competition from Asia is not going to diminish anytime soon, and energy industry insiders note there is limited LNG carrier capacity and LNG tankers take quite a bit of time to build: about two years and a half.

Yet the European Union has set itself the ambitious goal of reducing imports of Russian natural gas by as much as two-thirds by the end of the year.

“REPowerEU will seek to diversify gas supplies, speed up the roll-out of renewable gases and replace gas in heating and power generation. This can reduce EU demand for Russian gas by two-thirds before the end of the year,” the European Commission said earlier this week when it unveiled its plan for independence from Russian fossil fuels.

The measures outlined in the plan include mandating EU members to have their gas storage facilities filled up at 90 percent of capacity by October 1 this year, increasing LNG imports and diversifying pipeline imports, and boosting energy efficiency. Of course, a buildup in wind and solar generation capacity is also part of the plan, as is the increased production of hydrogen.

The increase in LNG imports appears to be one of the quickest ways to reduce dependence on Russian natural gas. The plan to build import terminals suggests this plan is long-term. However, as an analysis from Energy Intelligence strongly suggests, the chances for success of this specific part of the REPowerEU plan are quite slim.

The author of that analysis, Sarah Miller, makes several points that should sound an alarm in Brussels that they may be in over their heads. Some of these points concern the availability of LNG, as noted above, and the medium-term global plans for capacity expansion.

One very important point, however, has to do with the price of the commodity. “LNG remains a viable fuel source for Asia at the moment only because most of it is still price-linked to oil and therefore much cheaper than spot cargoes. That’s true even though oil is now well over $100 per barrel,” Miller writes.

In other words, Asian buyers mostly get their LNG through long-term contracts. Europe does not have this luxury at the moment because there is not enough LNG for producers to commit to such large new buyers. And there won’t be enough LNG for a while yet, given the time it takes to build a liquefaction plant, even without delays, which seem to be common in the LNG industry.

The situation is quite ironic because the EU has been trying to reduce its reliance on long-term contracts with Gazprom and increase the share of spot deals in natural gas in the past few years, perhaps acting on the assumption that gas supplies will always be abundant and therefore cheap.

Now, gas is not only through the roof, but LNG producers, as Energy Intelligence’s Miller notes, are demanding commitments of between 15 to 20 years from potential buyers.

“Will European buyers be ready to accept such extensive future obligations in order to deal with a near-term problem?” Miller asks, and answers her question with “Perhaps, if things get bad enough,” noting that even if things do get bad enough, deals will take time to seal.

The EU does not exactly have that time. The new heating season begins in less than seven months. That means less than seven months for member states to fill up their storage caverns at 90 percent with gas that will have to come from somewhere, although it is unclear where.

It also means less than seven months for a massive buildup in wind and solar capacity. Again, it is unclear how exactly this will happen and, not unimportantly, how much it will cost in light of the latest trends on the metals market. Also unclear is what happens when the wind stops blowing, which is what quite often happens during the European winter.


These are only a fraction of the questions that the EU’s energy independence plan raises. The answer to the question of whether LNG could replace the 40 percent of European gas consumption that Gazprom provides currently, however, seems crystal clear. There is no physical possibility for that.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com


And a comment:

The European Union (EU) will continue to depend on Russian gas supplies well into the future. There are many reasons for this.

  • The first is that the combined LNG exports of the United States, Qatar and Australia and also Norway’s gas exports to the EU can’t replace Russian piped gas of 200 billion cubic metres (bcm) annually and 15-16 million tonnes of LNG.
  • The second reason is that the bulk of US, Qatari and Australian LNG exports are contracted to customers in the Asia-Pacific region in long-term contracts of 15-20 years.
  • The third reason is insufficient LNG import capacity in Europe. Germany has announced a decision to urgently build two LNG terminals but this takes at least 3-4 years to build.
  • The fourth is that rising LNG demand in the Asia-Pacific region and higher prices than the EU will always attract the bulk of LNG exports at the expense of the EU.
  • The fifth reason is that Russian piped gas to the EU will always be far cheaper than LNG.
  • The sixth is that the EU prefers to buy its gas and LNG needs in the spot market. But the spot market isn’t reliable. One day you have supplies and the second day nothing at all.
  • The seventh reason is that all alternative gas and LNG producers can’t raise their production soon enough to replace Russian gas supplies. Norway for instance can’t increase its supplies to the EU beyond the current level. Moreover, the maximum volume of gas piped through the South Gas Corridor (SGC) pipeline from Azerbaijan to the EU via Turkey can’t be increased beyond 20 bcm/y which is the capacity of the of the gas pipeline. Furthermore, there is a limit to how much major LNG suppliers like the United States, Qatar and Australia can expand their LNG production capacity in the next five years to satisfy rising demand from both the Asia-Pacific region and the EU. Iran neither has major pipelines to ship its gas to Europe nor has an LNG export capacity. It will take years before Iran is able to ship its gas to the EU.
  • The eighth reason is that accelerating wind and solar power capacity deployment is easy said than done because of their intermittent nature. Europe has been building its wind and solar generation capacity for more than 30 years. Yet, the EU plunged into a massive energy crunch partly because of the intermittency of renewables.

Nuclear energy faces huge opposition from Germany, the EU’s largest economy and many other members.

Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
International Oil Economist
Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London
 

Persej

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Who needs oil when we can drive electric cars? Oh, wait...

Tesla increases price of base Model 3 in Germany by €7,000

Tesla increased the price of the base Model 3 in Germany by €7,000 ($7,678.44) over the weekend from just under €42,990 ($47,158.74) to €49,990 ($54,837.53).

The price hike follows a few other price increases in early March. Tesla raised the price of the Model 3 and Model Y Long Range variants in the United States and China before increasing the price of the Long Range and Performance Model 3 and Model Y in Germany. Recently, the base Model 3 in Germany also received a price hike of around 17%, putting it into the price range of a luxury car in Germany.

The price increase of the base Tesla Model 3 in Germany means potential buyers aren’t eligible for the highest electric vehicle subsidies from the government. Buyers who purchase an electric vehicle are eligible for up to €9,000 ($9,871.88) in subsidies, depending on the net price of the car they bought. EV subsidies are divided between the state and manufacturer.

For instance, for a €9,000 subsidy, the state’s share is €6,000 ($6,581.28) while the manufacturer’s share is €3,000 ($3,290.91). However, the updated price of the Model 3 in Germany makes it ineligible for the top €9,000 subsidy. For vehicles between the net price of €40,000 to €65,000 ($4,3881.96 – $71,303.38), the state subsidizes €5,000 ($5,485.94) and the manufacturer on contributes €2,500 ($2,743.00) in subsidies.

Base Model 3 customers will then lose out on €1,500 ($1,645.80) in subsides with the price increase. Stern calculated that the price increase of the base Tesla Model 3 in Germany makes the vehicle €8,000 ($8,777.60) more expensive, about 21% higher, considering the subsidies.

Tesla’s price increases were linked to the rising costs of raw materials like nickel for its lithium-ion battery cells. Last month, Tesla CEO Elon Musk warned of significant inflation pressure in raw materials and logistics. Even the Model S Plaid and Model X Plaid were not immune to the price hikes.

 
Top Bottom