Factual evidence showing politicians and renewable energy advocates “promote LIES”!

Posted: August 19, 2012 in Uncategorized

Anyone who has spent time and energy researching the truth behind the wild and baseless claims that: “a kWh of electricity produced free of CO2, would replace a kWh conventionally produced” will inevitably come to the conclusion that we are being scammed by a group of very outrageous and greedy people when it comes to selling their Wind and Solar subsidized nightmare!

Here is a well researched and scientific report showing us quite eloquently and truthfully that the above statement is nothing more than “political hogwash”!

How many more REAL stories will it take before these “green purveyors of misdirection and greed” get called up on the carpet of the “public courts” for supporting probably the biggest scam ever unleashed on the world?

FACTS ABOUT THE SAVINGS OF FOSSIL FUEL 
BY WINDTURBINES IN THE NETHERLANDS1.

C. (Kees) le Pair


 


Abstract.

Electricity production in The Netherlands using renewables, especially wind,  has grown to a size that makes it visible in the national statistics of electricity generation. Its influence on fossil fuel consumption can be determined. Based on these ‘official figures’ we show the actual contribution of fuel reduction to be equivalent to about 4,1% of the installed – ‘nameplate’ – capacity.
The actual data also provide some insight into the mechanism that causes wind electricity to have such a dramatically small influence on primary fuel consumption.

Introduction
Renewables are being introduced into  electricity generation in order to save fossil fuel and to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions. In an early stage of this process a simple supposition convinced authorities and the public at large of the effectiveness of using renewables. A kWh of electricity produced free of CO2, would replace a kWh conventionally produced. It would therefore save the amount of the fossil fuel otherwise needed to produce that same quantity of electricity.
This simple notion has been criticized. The renewable electricity generation influences the way conventional units operate which in turn reduces their efficiency, and actually results in less savings. Conventional units are necessary when some of the renewable resources like wind and PV solar, are not available. They come when the wind blows or only during daylight hours. Electricity storage, which would alleviate this problem, is only feasible in very special situations. Otherwise it is too expensive.
World wide, a debate has evolved between the protagonists of large-scale renewable systems and critics who argue that the systems do not function as promised. Because quite substantial amounts of money are involved, there is a lot at stake. Many people, whose incomes and occupations are linked to the renewable sector do not appreciate the arguments put forward by the critics. Politicians, who have tried hard in the past to push renewables, risk damage to their green image if they suddenly change sides.
The dispute has continued for some time because of inherent difficulties in determining the decisive facts that would facilitate objective decision making. First of all, the electricity systems in different countries and regions are not alike. Therefore the way in which intermittent sources influence the overall operation differs from country to country. Thus, arguments that are valid in one place may not, or not as equally well, influence matters elsewhere. Secondly there is reluctance among producers to reveal the relevant production data. They claim that it is competitively sensitive data. Also we must realize that some of the data necessary to make final conclusions are simply not available. Thirdly, as some of the renewables advocates say, present day figures are not conclusive because the overall system is changing; for instance stronger interconnections between regions and so-called smart grids may improve the situation.

We took an active role in this debate as can be read in a number of earlier contributions (2,3…9). We have been in contact with other investigators abroad, whose work helped us to better understand the complexity of the problem and strengthened our conviction that there is something fundamentally wrong with today’s large scale renewable development. To mention but a few, I’d ask the reader to review the work on developments in the USA by W. Post (10) and on Denmark by H. Sharman (11) and P.F. Bach(12). There are many more excellent contributions and I apologize to their authors for not listing them all. Due to the lack of all the necessary data many studies have been based on models filled in with available, though incomplete, data and topped up with general knowledge about systems and components.
Noteworthy exceptions are the studies by BENTEK on the electricity systems of Texas and Colorado (13), of F. Udo on the Irish case (5, 7, 9) and several studies about Denmark (11, 12).
BENTEK used the actual pollutants’ emission data to show that adding wind did not achieve the objective of reducing the emissions. Udo used the detailed production time series provided by the Irish grid operator EIRGRID to show that wind accomplished much less than previously assumed. In Denmark the wind penetration is so strong that the results show up in all kinds of national statistics. They reveal that the Danes can use only half of their wind made electricity. They face other disadvantages too. For instance, they pay about twice as much for electricity as the French do.
However, these facts on foreign systems are not sufficient to influence policy at home. The argument that situations and systems are not alike and may not be easily compared provide an all too convenient veil to hide behind.
We have summed up most of the critical arguments in a recent article in EurophysicsNews (8). In a previous paper, I presented a model of a hypothetical wind turbine assembly in the center of the Netherlands using actual wind behavior and known properties of gas-fueled backup generation to show that wind electricity might even increase fuel use (6). But, of course, a model is not as convincing as actual facts.

READ THE WHOLE REPORT HERE:

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s