[ROCKMAN]

Dohboi - No problamo. We'll take the teasing along with the cheaper electricity. And the bragging rights of being one of the biggest alt generators despite being the largest oil producer.

[Keith_McClary]

Energy Department Announces New Regional Approach to Wind Energy Information

Six new Regional Resource Centers (RRCs) will serve their regions as wind energy information centers, supporting WINDExchange's efforts and working collaboratively with local organizations to engage diverse stakeholder groups. Their geographically-based focus will enable the RRCs to better understand and target the specific priorities and challenges relevant to their regions. Leaders from the RRCs are meeting this week at the National Wind Technology Center in Colorado to kick off this year's engagement activities in each region and discuss the new WINDExchange resources available to support their work.

Sounds like a bureaucratic boondoggle. Perfect name for it.

[ROCKMAN]

Keith - But certainly an impressive collection of politically correct buzz words: wind energy information centers; working collaboratively; to engage diverse stakeholder groups; geographically-based focus; target the specific priorities; challenges relevant to their regions; engagement activities; etc. Seems like the only thing missing is exactly who's going to pay for the build out. Certainly nothing wrong with an intense planning phase. But it would be nice to see exactly what the plan is to encourage the investment. Years ago Texas didn't really do a while lot of studies on the subject. They simply created an investor friendly regulatory environment and the profit motive created as much wind power here as the #2 and #3 states combined.

[Keith_McClary]

Keith - But certainly an impressive collection of politically correct buzz words

That's what I meant, but I don't think "politically correct" is quite right. It's more of a bureaucratic dialect of marketing-speak. What our local "Economic Development Officer" spews spouts. Is there a name for that?

[Graeme]

Germany’s Windiest State Set to Achieve 100-Percent Renewable Energy

While some countries around the world try to figure out how to deploy more clean energy, one German state is planning on having enough renewables for exportation.

Known as Germany’s windiest area, Schleswig-Holstein believes it could provide 100 percent renewable energy at some point this year, Renewables International reported. Producing as much renewable energy as it consumes in total electricity would go a long way toward Schleswig-Holstein meeting the 300-percent renewable goal the state’s Minister-President Torsten Albig announced at an energy conference two years ago.

ecowatch

[Ulenspiegel]

The federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern reached more than 100% in 2013, but obviously does not have a good PR department.

However, it is impressive how the state govenment of Schleswig-Holstein is able to develope and sell a good RE strategy, the Bavarian state government looks in comparison like a bunch of idiots.

[ROCKMAN]

Keith - "bureaucratic dialect". Yes...a much better term. I'll steal it and pretend I came up with it. Mucho thanks.

U - I can't find the references right now but there are two areas of wind farms in Texas that produce 100%+ of their e- from the turbines. Of course, the secret is relatively low demand in those areas. Is that also the nature of the area you described?

[ROCKMAN]

Pstarr - Which just goes to prove that Texans are really a bunch of closet socialists. Shhh...don't tell anyone...the NRA might revoke all our memberships. You know what's scarier then a socialist? A well armed socialist with a superiority complex that produces most of the oil in the country. LOL. Or as I like to call them: real Texians. (BTW that wasn't a misspelling...research it if you like.)

[Ulenspiegel]

[quote="ROCKMAN"
U - I can't find the references right now but there are two areas of wind farms in Texas that produce 100%+ of their e- from the turbines. Of course, the secret is relatively low demand in those areas. Is that also the nature of the area you described?[/quote]

Yes, all states with 100% wind energy in Germany and Austria are either real agricultural states (Burgenland) or have at least a low population density (->low absolute demand).

However, all these states have a long term strategy to produce and sell energy, which gives locally added value, tax income etc.

The situation in Schleswig-Holstein is interesting because this state started very early with wind power and has a lot of old turbines which are being replaced now, typical set-up in 2013: 3 turbines each with 600 kW and <1500 FLH are substituted with 2 turbines each with 3 MW and >2500 FLH. The electrical out-put triples at least. That is the reason they expect in Schleswig-Holstein a 300% production until 2025.

[dolanbaker]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-28251276
A wind turbine which cost the taxpayer £48,000 and generated an average of just £5 worth of electricity per month is being removed.

It was put up at the Welsh government's Aberystwyth office when it opened in 2009 as part of a range of environmentally-friendly features.

But ministers came under fire last year over its output and will now remove it.

Sometimes it's better to do nothing than to do something badly.

[ROCKMAN]

U - Thanks. Not picking on Germany, it's doing OK, but between how good they are with industrialization and the high cost of energy I would have expected it to be much further along. Politics? Something else?

[KaiserJeep]

What Germany says it is doing and what it is actually doing are different things. They are removing nuclear plants and replacing them with coal power. That is not a good thing, their emissions are increasing which is killing people.

[Ulenspiegel]

U - Thanks. Not picking on Germany, it's doing OK, but between how good they are with industrialization and the high cost of energy I would have expected it to be much further along. Politics? Something else?

Actually, electric energy is quite cheap for companies with large demand. Aluminium production by electrolysis increased in Germany since 2012. The AVERAGE price is very high, however most of the expensive electricity is sold to companies for which only 2% of the costs is energy. Short version, consumers and SMEs pay for the discount energy-intense industry gets. This should change IMHO.

Until 2005-10 mainly some technical limitations like size of turbines, height of towers in combination with limited number of good sites determined the relatively low contribution of wind power. This changed after 2010 in case of onshore wind dramatically, now the combination of cheap onshore wind (and PV) is ugly for the large utilities, especially as wind capacity is mainly owned by farmers. The point is, that the developement until 2010 led to good long term concepts and good cooperation between the different players (farmer, energy cooperatives, small uitilities, local credit institutes, state governments) which now give high political and economic yield.

[Ulenspiegel]

What Germany says it is doing and what it is actually doing are different things. They are removing nuclear plants and replacing them with coal power. That is not a good thing, their emissions are increasing which is killing people.

Why is it so hard for clowns like you to get correct data? There are some decent sites which publish high quality stuff in English:

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/

http://energytransition.de/blog/

A quite good discussion in this paper: http://energytransition.de/2014/06/germ ... conundrum/

The official secondary data on German energy demand and production: http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/

It is painfully obvious that REs provide more energy than the NPPs that are shut down, i.e. there is no room for new coal power in the market and large player are actually reducing coal power plants for this reason. The ~5 GW added coal power in 2012-2014 is a legacy caused by wrong decisions around 2005. We have for a few yeras more capoaciuty which run with lower FLH.

Q: How many projects for coal power plants were kicked off after 2011?
A: None.

Q: What does somebody, who actually studies the data of the Federal Transmission Net Agency (BNA), expects for the time 2014-2018?
A: A net decrease of fossil power of course. And the data of the BNA is a best case scenario, they currently list projects that go offline due to technical reasons (age). The many power plants that are economically dead will be added in the next years.

It is correct to argue that ~75% of the REs are "wasted" by substituting nuclear production, no discussion here. But we have already an positve net effect, therfore, your contribution is stupiod propaganda.

And it is quite obvious (low price, modern power plants), that lignite will die at a lower rate than hard coal, however, this will not change the situation very much, baseload is a dieing business model in Germany.

[Graeme]

Wind Power Growth Still Surging Where Strongly Supported

Double-digit growth continued in the global wind market in 2013. Of today's 318 gigawatts (GW) total generating capacity, 35 GW was added in 2013 alone. However, this growth (12.5 percent increase over 2012) was a significant drop from the average growth rate over the last 10 years (21 percent). Overall investment declined slightly from $80.9 billion in 2012 to $80.3 billion in 2013, write Worldwatch Research Associate Mark Konold and Climate and Energy Intern Xiangyu Wu in the Institute's latest Vital Signs Online trend (www.worldwatch.org).

Onshore, wind-generated power is becoming more cost-competitive against new coal- or gas-fired plants, even without incentives and support schemes. Over the past few years, capital costs of wind power have decreased because of large technological advances such as larger machines with increased power yield, higher hub height, longer blades, and greater nameplate capacity (which indicates the maximum output of a wind turbine).

Tighter competition among manufacturers continues to drive down capital costs, and the positioning of the world's top manufacturers continues to shift. The top 10 turbine manufacturers captured nearly 70 percent of the global market in 2013, down from 77 percent the year before.

In an effort to maintain profitability, manufacturers are trying new strategies, such as moving away from just manufacturing turbines. Some companies focus more on project operation and maintenance, which guarantees a steady business even during down seasons and can increase overall value in an increasingly competitive market. Some manufacturers are also turning to outsourcing and flexible manufacturing, which can lower overall costs and protect firms from exchange rate changes, customs duties, and logistical issues associated with shipping large turbines and parts.

Country Highlights from the Report:

Among the world's regions, the European Union is in the lead for installed wind power capacity. Its 37 percent share of global capacity edges out Asia's 36 percent. However, the European wind market slowed in 2013. The two most dynamic markets were Germany, which added 3 GW to bring its total to 34.25 GW, and the United Kingdom, which installed nearly 2 GW, much of which was offshore installations.

In 2013, China installed 16.1 GW of new wind power capacity, 24 percent more than it added the previous year. By the end of 2013, total installed wind capacity there measured 91.4 GW.

In India, government policies in support of wind power have lapsed. Only 1.7 GW were installed there in 2013, compared with a record 3 GW in 2011. To return to more robust growth, the Indian government reintroduced its generation-based incentive for wind and solar power projects between 100 kilowatts (kW) and 2 megawatts (MW).

The United States now has 61 GW of wind power capacity installed. But the expiration of the Production Tax Credit at the end of 2013 led to factory closures and layoffs due to the scarcity of new turbine orders. Because the tax credit was renewed in April 2014, wind installations are expected to tick up in 2014 and 2015.

Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, and the Middle East saw only 90 MW of new wind power additions in 2013. Taken together, these three regions have 1,255 MW of installed capacity.

Continuing its drive to increase energy security and diversify supply, Latin America added almost 1.2 GW of new capacity, bringing the region up to 4.8 GW by the end of 2013. A big factor in the region's wind expansion last year was innovative policy approaches taken by Brazil and Uruguay.

investorideas

[Ulenspiegel]

A timely and quite good contribution to the situation of coal power in Germany:

http://www.worldcoal.com/news/special-r ... 8ZCzrFYo1E

[StarvingLion]

"Short version, consumers and SMEs pay for the discount energy-intense industry gets. This should change IMHO. "

Well there you go. Why would I bother looking at your links to german sources when you have already admitted the "renewables" scheme is a wealth transfer scam. "This should change IMHO.". Obviously, it won't or else the ponzi will collapse.

"baseload is a dieing business model in Germany."

Ah yes. The "smart" grid scam is needed to bamboozle the local dummies into believing that this rationing device is intelligence personified. "Smart" software will cover up the fact that the sun just doesn't shine very much in Germany. "Smart" solution = additional fees for nobodies.

Energy democracy in Germany....hahahhaha...its as funny as the CO2 hoax.

[StarvingLion]

Here is another funny one for Mr. Ulenspiegel.

In an article entitled "About the Nonsense of Biofuels" in Angewandte Chemie, H. Michel reveals the renewables hoax in Germany as well.

"In a visionary view, storage of electric energy would not be required if superconducting electricity cable would be available. In this case, a limited number of photovoltaic fields located in various time zones around the globe, say, one in North Africa or the Kalahri, one in Eastern Asia/Austrialia, and one in Mexico, connected by such cables and to the consumer would continuously supply electric energy."

Holy moly. H. Michel just implied that the low insolation in Germany will never provide a competitive price of electricity for german industry so why bother? What are they going to do, have a big bleeping army surround the PV field in some distant land? Of course not, its a total loss of energy sovereignty to Big Capital. The little people will just be further enslaved. Thats why Big Capital hates nuclear energy so much. Like those idiots in the ukraine found out the hard way, once the nukes are gone, the financial predators arrive in short time.

But the German idiots are saving the world from the CO2 hoax....glory be.

[Ulenspiegel]

StarvingLion,

lack of nutritional input leads obviuosly to reduced brain activity, therfore, you are excused with your nonsense.

1) Prof. Michel (nobel price in an for the discussion interesting field ) is correct in respect to biofules. That is the reason, official support is not longer available. BTW I oppose biofuels because of their piss poor EROEI.

2) Your assumption that no baseload genration requires a smart grid, is a stupid strawman. Of course more crossborder transmission lines are the best approach. Read a littel bit more, then come back.

3) Nobody claims besides you, that PV will provide a high percentage of electricity in Germany, 15-25% are usually found in serious studies. Onshore wind is the backbone with 50-70%.

4) The generation of electricity with onshore wind is cheaper than new coal power, that is the reason for its success/problems of coal. Onshore wind with transmission lines are the way to go.

5) Your "renewables" scheme is a wealth transfer scam" is stupid propaganda, but you know this, don't you?

6) Of course import of PV electricity from northern African countries makes sense.

Please eat a little bit, read a little bit, think a little bit, then come back. At the monent you sound like an idiot, sorry.

[KaiserJeep]

The safety numbers do not lie. If you know a better way to measure the safety of various means of generating power than counting the number of actual casualties, then calculating the Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr), then please share it.

Because the safety of various forms of power generation is being measured and reported. This is the best report I have found:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Nuclear energy causes 90 deaths/trillionkWhr, wind power causes 150 deaths/trillionkWhr, and coal causes 170,000 deaths/trillionkWhr.

This report includes deaths associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, everything from miner's health problems associated with uranium mining to road accidents while hauling spent fuel rods and decommissioned reactor vessels. Prior reports have only counted operational deaths which were 0.04 deaths/trillionkWhr, an unrealistically low figure. This nuclear death rate is directly comparable to coal energy, where we count every dead miner and every death from stack emissions.

I repeat again my statement that Germany made a very bad decision about replacing nuclear energy with other types. Most of the new power plants will be coal, even if you reach your goal of 45% renewables.

Congratulations on replacing the safest form of energy production with the most dangerous.