Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 27, 2017
The Dutch Love Affair With Natural Gas: A Cautionary Tale
The story sounds familiar. For decades oil and natural gas drilling have been proceeding and creating prosperity for those involved. At some point significant earthquakes occur in areas where they were formerly very rare or nonexistent. Those quakes are linked to oil and gas drilling and production. The industry denies the link.
The quakes continue, get worse and finally get strong enough to do damage.
To those living in the United States, this reads like stories coming out of the fracking boom in states that include Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio, Kansas and Arkansas. To those living in Europe, it’s the story coming out of The Netherlands, home to the Groningen Gas Field, one of the largest natural gas finds ever.
The Groningen field has been both a blessing and a curse for the Dutch. Since its discovery in 1959 the Dutch have reaped huge financial benefits from having their own secure and abundant source of natural gas. Beyond that, the country has until recently been a major exporter of natural gas to its European neighbors.
But the field has also proven to be a drag on the rest of the economy, inflicting what has been dubbed the “Dutch disease.” In short, the Dutch disease refers to negative effects that a huge natural resource find can visit upon a society. These include a decline in other sectors of the economy and a strong currency which makes exports less affordable to foreign buyers. The moniker “Dutch disease” results from the fact that The Netherlands was the first place such effects were studied in detail.
What has caught the Dutch by surprise–and may someday soon catch America by surprise–is the speed with which its decades-long reliance on a large initial endowment of natural gas has turned into a liability.
First, there were the earthquakes linked to drilling and production operations in Groningen which have forced the government (part owner of the field) to scale back production to reduce the frequency and severity of those quakes. This production decline of more than 50 percent has meant a serious loss of revenue for the government which used those revenues for decades to supplement the government’s budget. Government gas revenues dropped by more than half from €13 billion to around €5 billion from 2013 to 2014.
Second, as a result of the production cutbacks The Netherlands is now a net importer of natural gas, instantly losing its self-sufficiency status. Europe’s gas now will likely have to come increasingly from Russia whose relations with Europe are replete with complications.
Third, the Dutch have failed to prepare for this day. Instead, they blithely made themselves deeply dependent on natural gas for their energy needs. Some 98 percent of Dutch homes use natural gas for heating and cooking. Renewable energy makes up a paltry 5.5 percent of the country’s energy mix as of 2014.
Fourth, the Dutch are still obliged to honor long-term contracts which force them to deliver substantial quantities of natural gas to customers outside the country. The country is increasingly facing the strange predicament of having to import more and more natural gas to offset what it must ship abroad. This is in a country whose dominant field, Groningen, is now 80 percent depleted.
And, here is where the Dutch situation ought to be a warning to the United States. America is entering into more and more long-term contracts to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) to customers in Europe and Asia even as the country remains a net importer. There is good reason to believe that most estimates of future natural gas production in the United States are far too optimistic. Let me quote for the second time in three weeks from an independent analysis of U.S. shale gas production trends (the only class of natural gas experiencing production growth in recent years):
Shale gas production overall has declined by 4.7% since peaking in February 2016 (down 2.1 billion cubic feet per day…). All shale plays have peaked and older plays, like the Barnett and Haynesville, are down 38% and 52%, respectively.
Second, the U.S. electric utility industry has added significant natural gas-fired generating capacity in response to two trends: government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and the low price and rising availability of natural gas. Despite the election of Donald Trump, who favors a return to coal, the low price of natural gas will probably allow the conversion to and expansion of natural gas-fired capacity to continue…until it can’t. At which time we may be stuck with much higher electricity costs.
The promised natural gas deliveries will likely not be available at low prices. Production declines will result in a battle over who gets the remaining supplies, thereby hiking prices for U.S. consumers. The U.S. utility industry may rue the day it chose to make itself so heavily dependent on natural gas.
Finally, states that became addicted to money from the natural gas boom are finding the bust difficult to navigate. In comparison, the Dutch had one large boom that lasted for decades. The kind of exploration and development that is taking place in U.S. shale gas fields requires constant drilling just to maintain production at current levels. We can expect boom and bust in short spurts from here forward. That signals that the cost of exploiting the remaining shale gas resource (again, until now the only growth area in U.S. natural gas production in recent years) will almost surely stairstep higher as lower-quality deposits are tapped at greater and greater expense.
The Dutch have had a very long love affair with natural gas. But, as it turns out, a seemingly comfortable, stable relationship with natural gas can unravel just as quickly as a real love affair, leaving one dazed and asking how it all happened so fast.
Americans may not be as dependent on natural gas as the Dutch. But they have rushed into their own torrid love affair with natural gas and lost sight of the fact that affairs which start out torrid are the same ones that tend to flame out quickly, surprising everyone with their sudden demise.
63 Comments on "The Dutch Love Affair With Natural Gas: A Cautionary Tale"
twocats on Mon, 27th Feb 2017 7:27 pm
It’s from investing.com but the author is Kurt Cobb. I was about to say, “That’ a pretty clear-eyed assessment from an investing website”. Didn’t know this history of the Netherlands. Sounds Seneca Cliff-like in nature.
Sissyfuss on Mon, 27th Feb 2017 8:52 pm
Hey, how cum Cloggensnitzel never let it be known that the Nutterlands is a big steaming pile of environmental feces.
Plantagenet on Mon, 27th Feb 2017 10:39 pm
The article claims one symptom of the “Dutch Disease is a strong currency—–but a strong currency is a sign of a strong healthy economy. Just ask the Swiss.
Cheers!
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 12:26 am
The Netherlands has discovered a new energy province that is bigger than the country itself, with shallow water and persistant spectaculair high wind speed of 10 m/s:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/gold-mine-north-sea/
But what does investing.com kmow.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/12/gas-heating-cooking-to-be-phased-out-dutch-government-plans/
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/09/dutch-plan-subsidy-free-offshore-wind-farms-from-2026-onward/
Holland is traditionally very good at offshore; Shell has entered the offshore wind business and no doubt will become one of the biggest players world wide.
And then there is geothermal that will provide for space heating and completely replace natural gas.
Let the Americans under Trump remain loyal to fossil, while Europe moves on into new profitable territories.
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 12:38 am
Rapid development of geothermal energy in The Netherlands:
http://www.iftechnology.nl/rapid-development-of-geothermal-direct-use-in-the-netherlands
This technology can be applied worldwide. Two drill holes of 2000m can supply warm water for decades like a saudi old school oil well.
Shooting holes in the ground for geothermal:
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Geothermal-Energy/Shell-Backs-Geothermal-Gun-Tech.html
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 12:49 am
One year ahead of schedule, Dutch Rail installed new wind power capacity that completely matches its electricity consumption, setting environmental standards for others to follow:
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dutch-powered-energy.html
The energy is obviously pumped into the European continental electricity grid, to preempt the usual sneering remarks.
GregT on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 1:10 am
Like I mentioned before cloggie. You guys have a bit of catching up to do. We’ve been 100% hydro electric here for the better part of a century. And just for the record, I spent the last two decades of my career examining and implementing alternate energy solutions and infrastructure. The organization that I was employed with was at the leading edge of technology, and has received numerous awards in recognition of our accomplishments. I am very well aware of the limitations.
Been there, done that.
Antius on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 1:50 am
Suffice to say Cloggie, in so doing you are substituting a cheap energy source with superb EROI, with an expensive energy source with poor EROI. That makes energy relatively expensive and less affordable. There is a word for what happens next: Poverty.
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 2:18 am
“Dutch disease”
How many countries can claim that they have a government budget surplus?
http://nltimes.nl/2017/02/23/higher-income-lower-expenses-leaves-dutch-govt-eu200-mil-budget-surplus
Germany same story.
There is much talk about the astronomical German trade surplus, even larger than that of China. Less known is that Holland has a per capita even higher trade surplus than Germany:
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2015/29/netherlands-has-the-seventh-largest-trade-surplus-in-the-world
All figures mr Kurt Cobb can only dream about. And apparently he never heard about renewable energy either.
Suffice to say Cloggie, in so doing you are substituting a cheap energy source with superb EROI, with an expensive energy source with poor EROI. That makes energy relatively expensive and less affordable. There is a word for what happens next: Poverty.
Sorry Antius, but the EROEI of North Sea offshore wind is spectacular good. Your own government correctly identified it as the most promising way forward:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601736/wind-fuels-the-north-seas-next-energy-boom/
You guys have a bit of catching up to do. We’ve been 100% hydro electric here for the better part of a century.
Like everybody else did in the developed world as there is hardly any undeveloped hydro potential left in the West for decades now. Hydro is easy and you folks in Canada can praise yourselves lucky to be blessed by nature like that and the Chinese should be grateful to you that you Canadian non-tribalists will hand them over such a well-organized country. But the flatlanders don’t have that option so they need to come up with something else –> wind, geothermal, solar, bio, tidal.
GregT on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 2:22 am
“There is a word for what happens next: Poverty.”
Poverty is a relative term Antius. Most of us in the west today live much more luxurious lives than the Kings and Queens of old. I’m sure that if you could go back a few hundred years or so, they would tell you that life couldn’t possible get any better.
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 2:34 am
in so doing you are substituting a cheap energy source with superb EROI, with an expensive energy source with poor EROI
Large wind turbines have a ridiculously low energy payback time in the order of a couple of weeks (64 days for onshore; offshore is better):
https://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/life-cycle-analysis-of-the-embodied-carbon-emissions-from-14-wind-turbines-with-rated-powers-between-50-kw-and-34-mw-2090-4541-1000211.pdf
With an extremely conservative life span of 20 years (monopiles probably will survive many decades more, like the Eiffel tower will live for 300 years or more) that would mean an EROEI of 100, better than oil or gas.
Poverty, that’s for others.
GregT on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 2:37 am
“Hydro is easy and you folks in Canada can praise yourselves lucky to be blessed by nature like that”
If the summer before last is any indication of the future cloggie, hydro electric will also become even more problematic. Without naturally occurring water storage, hydro electric will become dead ‘out of the water’ in short time. There are also the issues of economies of scale, and access to fossil fuels. Without both, hydro electric is toast.
“Like everybody else did in the developed world as there is hardly any undeveloped hydro potential left in the West for decades now.”
Not true at all. Private contractors are now damming every single stream in south western British Columbia. It has been called the run-of-river project.
https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/run-of-river-hydroelectric-projects-in-bc-create-new-gold-rush/?gclid=CLyDxquwstICFQx_fgode_UPgg
makati1 on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 2:38 am
Most Westerners cannot even imagine “poverty”. They have never even come close to it. The American on welfare is wealthy compared to true poverty. Poverty is deciding not whether to buy meds or food, but to be able to buy anything, ever.
Have I experienced poverty? Not personally. I am a lucky Westerner. Have I seen poverty? Yes, most everyday. When you see a child of 7 or 8 sleeping alone on the sidewalk, on a piece of cardboard, and wearing dirty clothes, you can begin to understands poverty.
I cannot post his pic here, or I would. It tears your heart out. But, there is nothing I can do about it except to drop some coins in his cup and wish him a miracle. Not a common site, but too frequent in my life here. Americans live a very, very sheltered life and most do not appreciate it. They want more. THAT is why I say it is time for the system to collapse and reset to a lower level for everyone in the West.
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 2:42 am
Poverty is a relative term Antius. Most of us in the west today live much more luxurious lives than the Kings and Queens of old.
Far more luxurious.
Why not watch the excellent movie “Elizabeth I”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wNboYbgYjo
At [1:28] she is in bath in a stone cold palace. That bath tube is probably the only small body of warm water in the entire kingdom.
Compare that with this hilarious Dutch deplorable singing the praise of “power showers”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00f5aKOja9w
Anonymous on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 2:53 am
Not to worry, clogged drains has a plan. He is going to power the Netherlands with bio-tulips…fuel.
Bio-tulip fool, errr fuel, will be used to build ginormous wind turbines. The wind turbines will be used to build solar panels, the solar panels will be used to power the tulip plantations and everything will work just dandy.
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 3:06 am
There is the sneer-bro from Toronto again.
the solar panels will be used to power the tulip plantations and everything will work just dandy.
Never had any use for Uncle Tom here or solar panels to grow tulips:
http://tinyurl.com/hpsxwhx
Bio-tulip fool, errr fuel, will be used to build ginormous wind turbines.
Yep, one giant wind park after the other:
Offshore wind, meanwhile the cheapest form of wind-energy (or any energy for that matter):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65mgPeygC8
Projected multi-national North Sea wind park maintenance island:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI0sbiCNXtA
Short term plans so far:
http://www.4coffshore.com/assets/images/pages/home/Global-offshore-windfarm-map.jpg
Davy on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 4:46 am
“There is much talk about the astronomical German trade surplus, even larger than that of China. Less known is that Holland has a per capita even higher trade surplus than Germany”
Yea Clog, with a significant amount of those surpluses with your fellow EU members. Much of this is because the Euro is low because of the southern European debt malaise. There is nothing to crow about in Europe and when you do you are just more nationalistic jingo. Don’t go to makati land and show some objectivity and you will gain respect.
Davy on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 4:48 am
BULLSHIT “Large wind turbines have a ridiculously low energy payback time in the order of a couple of weeks (64 days for onshore; offshore is better):”
Davy on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 5:19 am
“China Accounts For Half Of All Global Debt Created Since 2005: Here Are The Implications”
http://tinyurl.com/h6n2u36
“Over three years ago, in November 2013, when the world’s attention was still largely focused on what the “Big 4” central banks would do with QE and/or interest rates, we wrote an article showing in one simple chart “How In Five Short Years, China Humiliated The World’s Central Banks”, and noted that in just the brief period since the financial crisis “Chinese bank assets (and by implication liabilities) have grown by an astounding $15 trillion, bringing the total to over $24 trillion. In other words, China has expanded its financial balance sheet by 50% more than the assets of all global central banks combined.” Fast forward to today, when not only is China’s debt the biggest wildcard for the stability of the global financial system (recall last week UBS observated that for the first time in years, the global credit impulse had tumbled to negative largely as a result of a slowdown in Chinese credit creation), but even central banks openly admit that China’s relentless debt-issuance spree is a major risk factor for global financial stability.”
“Debt in China has increased dramatically in recent years, accounting for roughly one-half of all new credit created globally since 2005. The country’s share of total global credit is nearly 25 percent, up from 5 percent ten years ago. By some measures (as documented below), China’s credit boom has reached the point where countries typically encounter financial stress, which could spill over to international markets given the size of the Chinese economy. Nonfinancial debt in China has increased from roughly $3 trillion at the end of 2005 to nearly $22 trillion, while banking system assets have increased sixfold over the same period to over 300 percent of GDP. In 2016 alone, credit outstanding increased by more than $3 trillion, with the pace of growth still roughly twice that of nominal GDP. As a result, the “credit-to-GDP gap”—the difference between the debt-to-GDP ratio and its long-run trend—has reached almost 30 percentage points. The international experience suggests that such a rapid buildup is often followed by stress in domestic banking systems. Roughly one-third of boom cases end up in financial crises and another third precede extended periods of below-trend economic growth.”
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 5:57 am
BULLSHIT
“BULLSHIT” is not a valid argument.
Do you have any figures to refute my claim, based on the study linked to in my post?
https://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/life-cycle-analysis-of-the-embodied-carbon-emissions-from-14-wind-turbines-with-rated-powers-between-50-kw-and-34-mw-2090-4541-1000211.pdf
Have a look at page 7/10, table at the top of the page, bottom line –> payback time 64 days.
Yea Clog, with a significant amount of those surpluses with your fellow EU members.
This article is about the Netherlands and not about Southern Europe. The author talks about “Dutch disease” and that the US should try to avoid the Dutch disease. It is in that context that I ridicule the author and that he can only dream of having a “Dutch disease”.
Davy on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 6:11 am
bullshit link, hows that?
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 6:15 am
You are seriously in suggesting that you can refute a university level study by:
Emily A. Smoucha1, Kate Fitzpatrick, Sarah Buckingham and Oliver G.G. Knox
School of Geosciences, Edinburgh University, UK
Waste and Recycling, Edinburgh University, UK
Crop and Soil Systems, Scotland’s Rural College, UK
Department of Agronomy and Soil Science, University of New England, Australia
…just by calling it “bullshit” without elaborating why?
This is not going to impress anyone.
Davy on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 6:16 am
Let me phrase that, bullshit link interpretation. No need for me to read it when you make a ridiculous statement like “Large wind turbines have a ridiculously low energy payback time in the order of a couple of weeks (64 days for onshore; offshore is better):”
Harquebus on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 7:46 am
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that finite resources do not last forever.
http://www.politico.eu/article/the-party-is-over-for-dutch-gas-now-for-the-hangover-groningen-netherlands-energy/
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 7:55 am
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that finite resources do not last forever.
That’s an open door, Harquebus.
No need for me to read it when you make a ridiculous statement like “Large wind turbines have a ridiculously low energy payback time in the order of a couple of weeks (64 days for onshore; offshore is better):
That “ridiculous statement” is nothing but a quote from an article written by university trained engineers! (table page 7/10)
But I understand it contradicts your collapse world view, so it needs to be dismissed.
Fair enough. Whatever works for you.
GregT on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 10:26 am
“That “ridiculous statement” is nothing but a quote from an article written by university trained engineers!”
‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’
-Upton Sinclair
Sissyfuss on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 10:34 am
Bloggedclog, the reason you’re ramping up renewables with such alacrity is because the Groningen is depleting according to the LTG inescapable scenario. Soon you will be purchasing vastly more expensive FF from your great comrades in Russia. Nyet thing to worry about there. And perhaps you could harness the power of the expanding quantity of earthquakes, say a giant wash tub with the agitation supplied by Earth’s twerking.
rockman on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 11:14 am
“As of 2009 the Groningen gas field has produced around 61 trillion cubic feet and the remaining 40 trillion cubic feet are expected to last for another 50 years.”
So the Dutch economy would have been better of if it had not produced about $90 BILLION (@ $1.5/MCF) of NG in the past and will produce another $120 BILLION (@$3/MCF) of NG in the next 50 years. So it would have been better for their economy to A – having imported almost $100 BILLION in NG over the last 5 decades (and $120 BILLION in the next) or B – had not imported any NG nor any in the future.
In a word: asinine. LOL.
ricko on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 11:53 am
It seems to me that the “64 days payback” in the report linked by Cloggie, refers to the payback time for the CO2 emissions embodied in the manufacture of the wind turbine
Davy on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 12:20 pm
Thanks ricko, it appeared that way. That is more realistic.
Simon on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 1:28 pm
Back to Antius’ comment, I cannot think of a single time the EROEI has ever been taken into account when selling Electricity, ROI yes.
MickN on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 1:46 pm
Excellent blog (IMO) from late 2016 about this
https://jillesonenergy.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/groningen-gas-production-and-earthquakes/
Antius on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 1:47 pm
The Capchku system employed by this site has made it difficult to comment here. I had a more comprehensive reply lined up.
Suffice to say EROI has a strong impact on plant economics. It is why solar thermal and wind have better economics than PV and why we started using hydro early on. Nuclear appears to be bucking the trend (at least for new plants in western world) due to huge administrative costs.
GregT on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 1:47 pm
‘I cannot think of a single time the EROEI has ever been taken into account when selling Electricity”
A group of us tried that experiment about a decade ago, and quickly came to the conclusion that it was lesson in futility.
The more you dig, the deeper the hole becomes.
GregT on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 1:51 pm
“The Capchku system employed by this site has made it difficult to comment here.”
It seems to only happen when you have multiple links added to your post. At least that’s been my experience.
Apneaman on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 2:02 pm
Clog, how many engineer’s currently employed out there in techno industrial civilisation do not have a university degree?
I’d love to see that guys job interview.
“It says here on your resume that you have been playing with your MECCANO set since you were 5 years old…well then, I guess the job is yours”
GregT on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 2:07 pm
There are good engineers, and bad engineers. Just like in any other profession. If you want an engineering report that supports your project, keep looking until you find the engineer that supports your needs. We did it all the time.
Antius on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 2:11 pm
‘Large wind turbines have a ridiculously low energy payback time in the order of a couple of weeks (64 days for onshore; offshore is better):’
The most scientific study of EROI for power plants to date:
https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf
Wind power EROI =16. After buffering, this declines to 4, although this obviously depends on the buffering method.
Sissyfuss on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 2:13 pm
Rock, the economy would been much poorer without the extraction but the biosphere much richer. Short term anthro view is hard to break away from.
Apneaman on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 2:35 pm
Greg, I’ve shown a number of young fresh out of school engineers the difference between what the blueprint says and how it goes the real world. Many times the blueprint and real world don’t match up. That’s when the real learning starts.
Antius on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 3:23 pm
‘That “ridiculous statement” is nothing but a quote from an article written by university trained engineers! (table page 7/10)’
Clog, we are all short of time, but I am sure that your link is worth a read. But I have come to realise that the more qualified an engineer is, the better they are at making a study that demonstrates exactly what they want it to. Not saying that that is necessarily the case here, I will read it.
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 3:28 pm
Wind power EROI =16.
Your article is from 2013. Must refer to onshore wind. Offshore has vastly better specs.
Simon on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 3:40 pm
Hi Antius
When generating a wholesale bid, many things are taken into account, and I am pretty sure EROEI is not one of them, GJ/MW yes, but only to cost the GJ (Commodity price), so effectively no one cares how many GJ you need to put in, to get out a Mw as long as the cost per GJ is advantageous.
When it comes to commissioning a plant I imagine it is the subject of a long term model and commodity price projections,no experience of this though, but if people are interested, I can ask.
Simon(tard)
rockman on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 3:46 pm
Sissy – “Rock, the economy would been much poorer without the extraction but the biosphere much richer.” No, it would not have been better for the biosphere because they would have burned a shit load more coal in the 60’s and 70’s. But even with the field producing for 20 years: from 1980 to 1990 coal consumption more the doubled from 6,800 stons to 15,800 stons. And had gradually declined to 14,000 stons by 2013. But then they reduced NG production to minimize those very minor tremors. From June 2016:
“Electricity production from coal in Dutch power plants increased for the fourth year in a row in 2015, according to Statistics Netherlands. Last year 39 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity was generated using coal, a 35 percent increase compared to 2014.
Coal generated electricity reached its highest level since 1990 last year. While the electricity produced with natural gas dropped by 9 percent to 46 billion kWh, the lowest level since 1996. Energy consumption remained about level at 118 billion kWh.”
Don’t like the Dutch burning NG? Fine, you got your wish as they switch over to burning more coal…just like the krauts. LOL.
rockman on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 4:00 pm
And to jump back to past discussions about King Coal being “dead”. As other fossil fuels become less available/more expensive the idea that consumers wouldn’t accept burning more coal just defies common sense IMHO. And here are the Dutch who, while pushing for wind expansion, accept burning more coal to replace reduced domestic NG production. And this response from our super tree hugging European cousins? LOL. And some folks are expecting energy sacrifices from consumers in the US (the world’s biggest fossil fuel glutton), China, India, et al?
Really? Seriously, really? LOL.
Antius on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 4:15 pm
‘Your article is from 2013. Must refer to onshore wind. Offshore has vastly better specs.’
So what if its from 2013? That’s just 3 years ago. Have you started building these things from unobtainium since then?
Sorry but where is your evidence? I get the feeling Cloggie, that this is an idealistic crusade for you. You will believe the answer that you want to hear and dismiss the one that you don’t. That is about as daft as you can get with something so basic and practical as an energy supply. I have provided a peer reviewed reference, did you even bother to read anything of it other than the date?
Offshore, wind speeds are generally a little higher, but so is embedded energy. There is a lot of cost and a whole load of infrastructure offshore that doesn’t feature on land. And offshore could mean a whole spectrum of costs, depending on water depth, weather and sea floor conditions. If offshore meant only one thing, we would be building these things mid Atlantic. Is there a base case?
Davy on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 4:33 pm
Clog, is suffering the same condition doomers go through but his is techno optimism. It is much like gamblers or investors that cling to a point of view and rationalize it. There is a psychological term for it but I am in the field now doing some carpentry so have no time to check my notes. I was there back a few years ago with my doom. He will sober up just give him some time.
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 4:35 pm
Antius, offshore wind a “little better”?!
Wind power is proportional with V^3
Windspeed on land 6 m/s max.
Average windspeed North Sea 10 m/s
That’s (in theory) 216:1000 or more than a factor 4.
https://deepresource.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/avg-windspeed-ned-part-continentaal-plat.jpg
Furthermore, 3-4 years is a very long time in renewable energy land. Cost of offshore has come down spectacular lately.
Cloggie on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 4:40 pm
Links to offshore cost reduction:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/20/europes-offshore-wind-industry-booming-as-costs-fall
https://www.siemens.com/customer-magazine/en/home/energy/renewable-energy/offshore-generation-costs-to-drop-further.html
rockman on Tue, 28th Feb 2017 5:04 pm
The interest aspect to the Dutch turning to more coal burning is the similarity to Texas retaining our coal burning capacity to back up the intermittent nature of alt energy. Like Texas it allows expanding alt energy without waiting for the ever promising scaled up battery technology.