Monday, 10 October 2011

Windfarms increase CO2 emissions - new papers mess Gillard's Green Energy Plans

A recent headline on skynews said  Gillard sees smiles in wind turbines.
New papers mess up Gillard's renewable plans
Image Wikipedia

She'd better have a re-think. 

In fact, she should have a re-think of all her Green Energy Future plans. Two new papers show wind farms are not as green as previously thought.

It is well known that wind turbines are a very costly inefficient form of power production. Some new papers have thrown doubt on wind turbines' ability to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  

A new paper by C. le Pair titled Electricity in the Netherlands and  subtitled Windmills increase fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions


Abstract
First we describe the models presently used by others to calculate fuel saving and reduction of CO2 emission through windparks. These models are incomplete. Neglected factors deminish the calculated savings.
Using wind data of a normal windy day in the Netherlands it will be shown that windparks of various size cause extra fuel consumption instead of fuel saving, when compared to electricity production with modern gas turbines only. We demonstrate that such losses occur.
Factors taken into account are: low thermal efficiency at low power; cycling of back up generators; energy needed to build and to install wind turbines; energy needed for cabling and net adaptation; increase of fuel consumption through partial replacement of efficient generators by low-efficient, fast reacting OCGTs. 

Le Pair, in summary, points out that conventional plants are capable of providing all electricity demands. He concludes: As they say in th


The windparks do not fulfill 'sustainable' objectives. They cost more fuel than they save and they cause no CO2 saving, in the contrary they increase our environmental 'foot print'.
A decision to invest thousands of millions Euros in the construction of windparks 'to save fossil fuel and to reduce CO2 emission' is irresponsible. There are no savings, THERE IS LOSS!
We do not consider it likely that more knowledge of the factors influencing the present outcomes would change our results appreciably.

As they say in the advertisements, but wait! There's more!  

A new paper from Ireland. Wind Energy in the Irish Power System by Fred Udo
Abstract.
This article describes the influence of wind energy on the CO2 output of the fossil-fired generation of electricity in Ireland. Where most available publications on this subject are based on models, the present study makes use of real-time production data. It is shown, that in absence of hydro energy the CO2 production of the conventional generators increases with wind energy penetration. The data shows that the reduction of CO2 emissions is at most a few percent, if gas fired generation is used for balancing a 30% share of wind energy.

These two papers bring a deal of doubt to Ms Gillard's Clean Energy Future plans which should be put on hold.

 

Kill the Combet Carbon Tax

Carbon Sense Coalition Newsletter issued by Chairman Viv Forbes

A print-ready copy of this issue of "Carbon Sense" can be downloaded from:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/kill-combet-carbon-tax.pdf
10 October 2011
The Gillard-Green Coalition is determined to rush the 19 Carbon Tax Bills through the Australian Parliament early this week.
We need help to kill them.
Put the Heat on the Pollies. Pls spread this around. Let them hear our protest.

Two years ago, in June 2009, supported by a few other maverick climate alarm sceptics and even fewer in the non-government media, the Carbon Sense Coalition opposed the Rudd-Wong-Turnbull Ration and Tax Scheme. The public support of the sceptics was dramatically contrasted with the lack of support from big business. The people and the sceptics won, and the Rudd-Wong-Turnbull RATS scheme was beaten.

For a reminder of this battle see:    http://carbon-sense.com/2009/06/20/reject-the-cap-n-tax/

But the Carbon War is far from over. Now we have Brown-Gillard-Combet trying to ram down our throats a new carbon tax followed by a revamped RATS Scheme. We are not helped in this battle by luke warmists such as Greg Hunt. And we face daily alarmism from the whole government media/research empire.

But the sceptics are now far more numerous, the public is far more aroused, and some politicians are getting nervous. They know that we will never forget who votes for the Carbon Tax Bills. We will remember them in the next election.

As the Tories in UK are learning:

"The political consensus that defined action to curb carbon emissions and tackle climate change is drawing to a close".    James Murray, Business Green 5 October 2011.

And Green/ALP Coalition needs to remember:

"Political parties that campaign in favour of action on climate change get smashed at the polls."Tim Montgomerie, ConservativeHome 6 October 2010).

Let's have a look at:
Ten Key Tests for the Carbon Tax Bills.

Is there any evidence of unusual or dangerous global warming?
NO.
Therefore we should reject the carbon tax bills.

If we do nothing will it cause runaway global warming?
NO.
Therefore we should reject the carbon tax bills.

Is there an unusual or dangerous amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
NO.
Therefore we should reject the carbon tax bills.

Does carbon dioxide control global temperatures?
NO.
Therefore we should reject the carbon tax bills.

Can human action control the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
NO.
Therefore we should reject the carbon tax bills.

Is extra carbon dioxide a pollutant in the atmosphere, or a danger to life on earth?
NO.
Therefore we should reject the carbon tax bills.

Will our tax on carbon dioxide have any effect on world production of carbon dioxide or on global climate?
NO.
Therefore we should reject the carbon tax bills.

Will the big economies in our region such as USA, Japan, China and India follow us in taxing and rationing carbon fuels?
NO.
Therefore we should reject the carbon tax bills.

Will our major competitors such as Indonesia, Brazil, Canada and South Africa follow us in taxing carbon dioxide?
NO.
Therefore we should reject the carbon tax bills.

Are the benefits of taxing carbon dioxide likely to exceed the costs in job losses, wasted savings, destruction of asset values and increased costs for electricity, transport, food and construction materials?
NO.

The Carbon Tax Bills have failed the Ten Point Test and thus should be rejected. (For those who are interested we can support any of the above conclusions).

Authorised by Viv Forbes
Chairman,       
The Carbon Sense Coalition          
Rosevale  
Qld     4340     Australia