by mousepad » Thu 16 Jun 2022, 18:57:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')hat's why it's important to look at the quality of your source. If you are using sources that are biased against wind then of course they will give BS data
And what about sources that are biased pro wind? Are those BS too, or only the ones biased against wind?
How do you tell the bias?
https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/t ... d-insight/This was written by
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Dr John Constable is Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation.
If anything I would claim it's biased pro wind, yet it's bashing wind.
I have no idea what the Manhatten institute is. Is it biased against wind? I couldn't find anything to indicate that. What about you?
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/dis ... ind-energyThe pro-wind articles I linked to were written by climate activist outlets and a college. So clearly a pro wind bias seems likely. Why should I trust it?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-so ... overnment/
by jato0072 » Thu 16 Jun 2022, 19:27:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he solution is LESS. Less consumption, less production of crap, less waste, less population, less destruction.
While that slogan will never sell in a "democracy", rest assured "nature" will force humans do to exactly that.
"On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
-
jato0072
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Wed 04 Aug 2021, 16:47:30
- Location: NV
-
by kublikhan » Thu 16 Jun 2022, 19:38:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mousepad', 'A')nd what about sources that are biased pro wind? Are those BS too, or only the ones biased against wind?
How do you tell the bias?
Sometimes groups are pretty upfront about their stances: Pro wind, anti wind, etc. You can do a quick check on the article's homepage to see if that's the case. Sometimes its right in the url. If you read enough articles on the subject you might also start to recognize the same group of bad actors that put out BS like the REF and Manhattan Institute. Failing all of that, just ask yourself: "Does this article sound like they have a serious axe to grind on issue X?" If so, there's a good chance it's BS. So what about sites that are pro wind, do we take them as gospel? No, double check them against other sources like the EIA , Energinet, etc.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mousepad', 'T')his was written by Dr John Constable is Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation. If anything I would claim it's biased pro wind, yet it's bashing wind.
Sometimes people give their organizations deceptive names to hoodwink others. Ex: Renewable Energy Foundation. This is actually an anti-renewable energy group, not a renewable energy organization:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey are not a Foundation for Renewable Energy, as their name says and as any reasonable person would conclude from their name – they actually exist to undermine Renewable Energy – in that respect their name is a deceit."
Other critics such as Maria McCaffery, chief executive of RenewableUK, a trade body that represents more than 600 wind and marine energy firms, says the Renewable Energy Foundation's true purpose is diametrically opposed to the interests of the wind energy industry. "It is an anti-wind lobbying organisation," she told BusinessGreen. "I'd like to know where the renewable energy part of their remit is. They don't foster or promote or develop, they just try to undermine the case for wind energy all the time."
In 2011 it was revealed that it had been in discussion in April 2008 with the Charities Commission about its possibly overly political nature.
Renewable Energy Foundation$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hile the name of the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) suggests it is a charity dedicated to promoting low-carbon electricity, it appears to spend most of its time campaigning against onshore wind. When it was founded in 2004, with the TV personality Noel Edmonds as its chair, the organisation was clear it wanted to fight against the “grotesque political push” for onshore renewable energy in the UK. Many in the energy sector believe the charity to be full of anti-wind lobbyists.
The REF has strong links to a group accused of climate science scepticism, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, started by the former chancellor Nigel Lawson, who has denied global heating is a problem.
While the REF has been relatively quiet in recent years, growing pressure on the government to support wind energy to help solve the energy crisis seems to have led to it becoming more active again. In recent weeks, the charity has provided anti-onshore wind research to the Telegraph and Daily Mail. Colin Davie, a trustee of the REF, has appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme to oppose onshore wind.
The oil barrel is half-full.
by mousepad » Fri 17 Jun 2022, 09:05:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'R')enewable Energy Foundation. This is actually an anti-renewable energy group, not a renewable energy organization
Just because the article is bad news doesn't mean it's wrong nor that it's biased. And even if it's biased that still doesn't mean it's wrong.
You will note the critics you posted are all renewable energy companies that have an interest in hype and promote renewables as much as possible.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')There have been critics of REF's agenda, in particular Juliet Davenport, chief executive of green energy provider Good Energy, and Dale Vince, founder of Ecotricity,
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '
')Double check it with what the EIA or other government bodies are saying, such as the one I liked to earlier.
when I go to check the media bias of the EIA I get this
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/us-depar ... e-science/$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')For Example, under the Biden Administration, they promote pro-climate science information such as this Powering a clean, electrified future
by AdamB » Fri 17 Jun 2022, 09:33:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mousepad', '
')I think I stick with the middle ground. Renewables is not the panacea you would like us to believe, yet it probably is an important source of energy once we power down to a society of LESS.
No allowance for just a more expensive energy future, with plenty of nukes thrown into the mix? Less comes about through conservation and substitution, nukes being the substitution, conservation being the result of the higher required prices. But both of these conditions operating not necessarily requiring a world of "less".
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
-
AdamB
- Volunteer
-
- Posts: 11018
- Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
-
by mousepad » Fri 17 Jun 2022, 09:41:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mousepad', '
')I think I stick with the middle ground. Renewables is not the panacea you would like us to believe, yet it probably is an important source of energy once we power down to a society of LESS.
No allowance for just a more expensive energy future, with plenty of nukes thrown into the mix? Less comes about through conservation and substitution, nukes being the substitution, conservation being the result of the higher required prices. But both of these conditions operating not necessarily requiring a world of "less".
I think nuclear is the wrong choice in general, but I understand I'm not going to have a say in that.
So even if society decides for nukes, it probably doesn't work out to be as smooth as the proponents claim it to be.
I think LESS is a better plan, and most importantly we don't even have to do anything about it, it will implement itself. Easy. And I like easy.
by AdamB » Fri 17 Jun 2022, 10:38:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mousepad', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '
')No allowance for just a more expensive energy future,.
What you mean? That's exactly what I'm saying. More expensive = LESS. Which I fully support.
More expensive doesn't necessarily equal LESS. No requirement for that at all within the scope of a supply/demand/price curve.
In 2015 Brent was $52.32/bbl for the year. In 2018, the last peak oil (which means MORE volume than 2018) the annual average price was $71.34 per barrel. More volumes at a HIGHER price, globally. Since 2018, volumes have gone up and down because of Covid and all the resulting supply chain issues and wars, but we are within a million barrels a day or so in terms of volume of that 2018 high, and prices are now $100+. And we're all still happily soaking the stuff up.
The market sends signals on what it thinks the supply/demand balance is, and there are macroeconomic rules that should generally apply, but there is also the signal noise (something the economists don't talk about because it becomes very engineering-centric) and sussing it all out is quite interesting at times.
But no, there is not a requirement that conservation because of a higher price and per capita decrease in consumption means a total decrease in consumption....changes in population alone can negate that idea.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mousepad', '
')But pro reneweables claim smooth sailing and BAU into a blissfull future of rainbows and roses, if only the evil fossil industry were not scheming and sabotaging their ways.
I'm just pro energy because I like modern conveniences. The ridiculous politics of the issue are mind numbingly silly nowadays. As VT has on occasionally pointed out correctly, Biden came raging into office all negative fossil fuels. But because idiot politicians don't understand energy use and markets any more than Happy McPeaksters do, it is NO surprise that they then completely reverse themselves when predictable supply issues crop up (I was wondering about those refineries coming off line more than a year ago were going to do) and then the war blows up the problem far beyond its normal economic effect, Biden's economic recovery screaming out of Trump's recession skyrockets demand at the same time and suddenly its just the usual anti Big Oil routine that Carter tried out.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
by AdamB » Fri 17 Jun 2022, 14:09:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '
')
More expensive doesn't necessarily equal LESS. No requirement for that at all within the scope of a supply/demand/price curve.
Well as people have a pretty fixed amount of annual income spending more on energy will require them to spend LESS on other things.
Conservation and substitution. I buy chicken instead of steak. Generic instead of name brands. Etc etc. I'm pretty sure folks know these concepts so well, they do it instinctively, each under their own given circumstances, even if they don't know the names of the economic concepts in action.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '
') Going forward I expect anything that can be considered a discretionary expense like eating out or Christmas shopping to drop in price to match the dollars actually available after the food and energy bills are paid.
We are halfway to an official recession. You are describing something that happens in all recessions. Prioritization drives choices, economists attach names to the whys. Same effect probably happens to individuals under other changes in circumstances as well. Loss of job, markets take a turn, you name it.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
by kublikhan » Fri 17 Jun 2022, 14:38:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mousepad', 'J')ust because the article is bad news doesn't mean it's wrong nor that it's biased. And even if it's biased that still doesn't mean it's wrong.
I didn't say bad news equals wrong. Go back and read my first post on this topic. I was correcting the wrong information you posted on wind O&M costs. Wind O&M costs have been falling, not rising.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mousepad', 'Y')ou will note the critics you posted are all renewable energy companies that have an interest in hype and promote renewables as much as possible.
The critic quotes I used were on the biases of the REF and Manhattan Institute. And despite the critics pro wind agenda, they are very qualified to know who their rivals in the anti-wind lobby are. The actual data I quoted was from the US department of energy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mousepad', 'w')hen I go to check the media bias of the EIA I get this
For Example, under the Biden Administration, they promote pro-climate science information such as this Powering a clean, electrified future
They also say this:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hese sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles.
Contrast that with the Manhattan Institute:The oil barrel is half-full.
by mousepad » Sun 19 Jun 2022, 09:17:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '
')Claims disproven.
You are linking to a lot of articles with estimates and assumptions. You're also quick to shoot the messenger.
The most important sentence in the REI article is this, in my opinion.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')data from audited accounts on the capital and operating costs of 350 onshore and offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom
The problem of course, the data doesn't' seem to be available. Are they flat out lying with the numbers? Are they cherry picking? We don't know.
I then look at the daddy of all reports, Lazard, which pretty much shows what your are claiming.
https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/laz ... on-140.pdfThe problem I'm having is that the report is sprinkled with this kind of statements:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional factors, among others, could include: capacity value vs. energy value; network upgrades, transmission, congestion or other integration-related costs; significant permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of complying with various environmental regulations
and also the 4 pages of "key assumptions" they show (page 16-19).
Same with your other heavy hitter "Assessing Wind Power Operating Costs in the United States"
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1544993It's entirely based on survey and full of estimates
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Recent All-in OpEx Estimates
by kublikhan » Sun 19 Jun 2022, 18:20:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mousepad', 'A')lso if we look at Table 1 on Page 6 we see a summary of the OpEX for various years and regions.
There's no true trend that can be discerned. Yet it strikes me as interesting that the IEA estimates in fact increased from 2014 to 2020, exactly what the REI article claims. Now there's not enough data points and data certainty here, I agree. Yet it's interesting.
If you look at figure 7 on page 18 you can see a clear downward trend in OpEx over time.
The IEA says the same thing:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Low-carbon generation is becoming cost competitive
The key insight from this 2020 edition is that the levelised costs of electricity generation of low carbon generation technologies are falling and are increasingly below the costs of conventional fossil fuel generation. Renewable energy costs have continued to decrease in recent years.
In particular, this report shows that onshore wind is expected to have, on average, the lowest levelised costs of electricity generation in 2025. Offshore wind is experiencing a major cost decrease compared to the previous edition.
ConclusionsThe increasing competitiveness of low-carbon technologies for electricity generation remains the key insight of this report.
Onshore Wind O&M costs in USD/MWh[page 63]
United States: 9-26, 18 average
All countries(>=1MW): 4-29, 17 average
Projected Costs of Generating Electricity$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mousepad', 'I') think what we need is ACTUAL data. Profit/loss and balance sheets of operating wind farms. Blindly believing in some article just because it's government or your favorite university ain't good enough. Estimates and assumptions aint' good enough either.
Do you think profit/loss and balance is available from traded companies? I'm not deep enough into any of this to know.
I'm not here to proof my point, I'm here to learn and understand, so I'm certainly willing to agree with you if you can provide the data to backup your claims.
The IEA releases reports with some data like that. Although some of the source data is often stuffed into excel spreadsheets you have to download separately, but links are provided. You might want to take a look at this one for example:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Overview
The International Energy Agency Wind Technology Collaboration Programme (IEA Wind TCP) Task 26—The Cost of Wind Energy represents an international collaboration dedicated to exploring the past, present, and future cost of wind energy. This report discusses trends from 2008 through 2016 that affected the cost of land-based wind energy in each country. The cost of wind energy during this period is compared with the market value of wind energy in the respective electricity market for each country. These project-level data illustrate how wind turbine technology, wind project investment and operation costs, wind plant energy production, and wind project financing costs vary with the specific wind turbine technology installed in a given year. These trends illustrate how wind turbine and wind plant technology have changed from 2008 to 2016 along with the corresponding changes to wind plant cost and performance.
Wind Energy Project Trends in Denmark Since 2008As for the investment cost of land-based wind turbines, following a period of cost decline between 2008 and 2011 and a consequent stabilization period from 2013 to 2014, the cost decreased substantially in 2015 and 2016. The capital cost of turbines is now at a record-low capacity-weighted average of 1,153 €/kW ($1,275/kW). The average fixed O&M cost has been stable at around 40 €/kW/yr ($44/kW/yr) with a reduction in 2016, down to 33 €/kW/yr ($37/kW/yr). Besides, data for O&M indicate a large span across different projects. Interviews with banks and developers (Ea Energy Analyses 2017) suggest a trend toward reduced cost of financing for land-based wind in Denmark. Weighted average cost of capital has been going down from 2013 to 2016 compared to 2008‒2012. The main driver for this reduction is a substantially lower cost of debt, as well as lower cost of equity, while the debt -equity ratio seems to have been stable during the entire period.
Germany SummaryThe levelized costs of land-based wind energy in Germany decreased significantly between 2008 and 2016, from 95 €/MWh ($105/MWh) in 2008 to 60 €/MWh ($67/MWh) in 2016. This equals a reduction of 39%. The main drivers identified for this LCOE reduction are increased energy production and decreased WACC and OpEx. The market value of land-based wind energy in Germany is significantly lower than the average annual electricity price. Value of land-based wind as well as average electricity prices decreased between 2012 and 2016, therefore the need for subsidy remains until market values and costs meet.
Norway SummaryLCOE for wind energy decreased substantially in Norway from 2008 to 2016, from 56 €/MWh ($62/MWh) in 2008 to 32 €/MWh ($35/MWh) in 2016, a reduction of around 40%. The main drivers identified for this LCOE reduction are increased net energy production and decreased WACC and OpEx. The market value of wind power in Norway is near the average annual electricity price, due to low wind power penetration and the flexibility of the Norwegian hydropower system. Wind power production also benefits from higher wintertime production when power prices tend to be higher. The cost of wind energy in Norway is quickly approaching average power prices despite these
having declined in recent years. This, along with expectations for larger and lower specific power turbines in the near term, suggest that wind power in Norway is very near grid parity already. This implies that significant deployments are plausible even after the end of the electricity certificate scheme in 2021.
US SummarySince 2008, the calculated subsidy-free LCOE for U.S. wind energy projects has shown a 45% reduction from 73 €/MWh ($81/MWh) to 40 €/MWh ($44/MWh) in 2016. Improvement in wind project capacity factors from 33% to an estimated 43% is the primary driver for LCOE reduction. Reduction in average wind project investment costs from 1,955 €/kW ($2,162/kW) to 1,434 €/kW ($1,586/kW) is the second largest driver for LCOE reduction. Reduction in O&M costs from 47 €/kW/yr ($52/kW/yr) to 39 €/kW/yr ($44/kW/yr) is the third driver, accounting for a 2 €/MWh ($2/MWh). Lower O&M expenditures over time are supported by larger turbine sizes, a growing and maturing wind sector, and increased competition among O&M service providers.
The oil barrel is half-full.
by kublikhan » Sun 19 Jun 2022, 19:33:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mousepad', 'T')he most important sentence in the REI article is this, in my opinion.
data from audited accounts on the capital and operating costs of 350 onshore and offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom
Yeah he made the same kind of claims in his 2012 report. Yet when people looked at the actual wind farm data it was revealed Huges report was BS.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') wrote a few weeks ago about the surprising assertion from the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) that the performance of wind farms declines rapidly with age.
After meeting REF in early 2013, DECC Chief Scientist David MacKay responded to the study, eventually publicly saying that Hughes’ work had serious statistical flaws.
Hughes’ study contained no assessment of the performance of specific wind farms. All the data was merged into one large statistical series. On the basis of my assessment of actual production data from the earliest farms I want to suggest that the empirical evidence strongly suggests that Professor Hughes greatly exaggerates the rate of performance decline. None of the 14 wind farms shows ageing effects more than a small fraction of the figures he quotes.
Method
I have two sources of data. First — with many thanks to Peter Edwards — I have the yearly output figures from Delabole from 1992 until the farm was ‘repowered’ with new, much larger, turbines in mid 2010 after nearly twenty years of production.
Second, I have the numbers from Ofgem’s database on the output of renewable generators. These numbers only go back to April 2002.
We also have information on the average performance of UK onshore commercial wind turbines. DECC publishes a yearly estimate of the ‘load factor’ of existing wind farms.
Chart 3 shows that the 14 oldest wind farms have load factors slightly below the UK average for the years 2001 to 2011. But there is no evidence of any widening of the differences. And, most importantly, the absolute level of output of these geriatric turbines is very much higher than Professor Hughes said.
Wind energy myths debunked$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t was the proud boast of an econometrician I knew that he could ‘prove’ anything using statistics. He would have loved Gordon Hughes’ 2012 paper on the effect of age on the output of wind turbines.
Econometrician Hughes never seemed to talk to any operators of wind farms, who would have corrected his wild statistics. Nor did his paper actually provide us with the output figures from any individual turbines. Nevertheless, this didn’t stop his extraordinary analysis from getting substantial coverage. Yesterday Professor David MacKay, chief scientist at DECC, weighed in against Hughes’ conclusions.
Wind turbines probably do deteriorate over time. They are very complicated mechanical devices undergoing huge mechanical stresses. But the decline is small, fairly predictable and nothing like as sharp as Professor Hughes says. Hughes’ work demeans his profession.
Another nail in the coffin of econometrics: Gordon Hughes and the abuse of statisticsJust as you are aware that the pro wind lobby has an interest to hype wind as much as possible, you should also be aware that the anti wind lobby has an interest to bash wind as much as possible. And their "data from 350 wind farms" can be manipulated to say whatever they want to say. Especially when you can't even see the data. You have to take it on faith. From someone who has in the past tried the same tricks and was called out as posting BS. I don't think Huges or the REF deserve the benefit of the doubt you are giving them.
The oil barrel is half-full.
