Archive for the ‘Natural gas’ Category

More growers turn to coal – Use of Coal is Expanding in the Province of Ontario

November 12, 2008

Editor: Can it get any more ridiculous?

Ontario is hell bent to close our coal plants and replace them with intermittent wind farms and solar parks – backed up by expensive gas plants.

If you asked someone to design the worst electrical system they could, it would likely be the one described above. The very things you would want to avoid if possible. Expensive and unreliable.

How do you promote an expensive, unreliable electrical system?

Are you stupid? Own a business?

Ontario is the place for you!

Shouldn’t the growers be using renewables like wind and solar? Not if you want your tomatoes.(wind and solar create carbon credits. We need reliable cost effective energy)

Dump the green lobbyists today – Call in the engineers and lets get a system that is cost effective and reliable. I have said this too many times but I will say it once more.

I had a long talk with the senior policy adviser for the Ministry of Energy and he agreed that the best system for Ontario was to put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build a nuke. 10 billion. Cost effective and as clean as we will get.

The green lobbyists plan-60+ billion (that’s a lot of your taxes wasted) for a system that is more expensive, unreliable and in the end not likely any cleaner than the one the policy adviser would build.

“This is about politics” I was told by the adviser. Well folks – heat your home or greenhouse with politics.

Read the story and if you are not outraged by this govt. – you probably work for them or one of the lobbyists.

.

More growers turn to coal

TORONTO STAR PHOTO ILLUSTRATION

TORONTO STAR PHOTO ILLUSTRATION

Tyler Hamilton

Energy Reporter

“Coal is expanding in the province, despite a policy to phase out coal,” says Roger Samson, executive director of REAP-Canada, an independent group that encourages sustainable farming practices. “The Ontario government has no plan on how to mitigate this.”

How much coal, potentially, are we talking about? The energy demands of a typical greenhouse are enormous. Shalin Khosla, a greenhouse specialist with the agriculture ministry, says anywhere between 35 per cent to 50 per cent of the costs of operating a modern vegetable greenhouse goes toward energy consumption. The figure is closer to 20 per cent for flower growers.

It’s estimated that greenhouses in Ontario cover 2,823 acres, and that the average greenhouse requires 9,500 gigajoules of energy per acre every year. This works out to 26.8 million gigajoules annually.

Convert that energy into electricity potential and it works out to 7.44 terawatt-hours a year – more than three times the 2004 electricity output of the Lakeview coal-fired generating station in Mississauga (which has since been closed down and demolished).

That’s equivalent to more than one million tonnes of coal being burned annually.

It’s a mathematical exercise that raises a serious public policy question: What’s preventing the entire greenhouse industry from moving to coal, and in doing so, undermining the spirit of the McGuinty government’s coal phase-out strategy?

Not much, it appears. Unlike power plants and other major industrial facilities, greenhouses can burn whatever fuel they want without much scrutiny.

Keith Stewart, an energy expert with WWF-Canada and author of a book on Ontario’s electricity system, calls the situation “perverse” and a reflection of inconsistent government policy.

“Outdated energy policy is giving us coal-fired tomatoes,” he says.

full story at the Toronto Star

Tyler Hamilton can’t seem to write a story without including Keith Stewart in it. Tyler, go find some engineers. Stewart has a Phd in political science and environment. He is not a energy expert nor is the WWF.

I haven’t read his book but I have read enough “green” policy papers to pretty much know what it says. Green politics does not make an energy expert.

Stewart is a lobbyist for the green movement. Gerald Butts the ex-principal Secretary for McGuinty is now with the WWF. Robert Hornung of CanWEA and the Pembina Institute along with his friend David Suzuki are all involved in pressuring the govt. to adopt their policies and in the process are doing great harm to this Province and Canada.

None of these people are employed by the govt. nor are they elected and I don’t believe any of them are engineers.

They are promoters of a massive fraud that goes by the name of “Man Made Global Warming”.

So butt the fuck out of our electrical system.

If you don’t like Canada – go join your mentor Maurice Strong in China. They use lots of coal there. Go bother the Chinese

If any of you mentioned above would like to enter into an open debate, or have a comment-I’m available.

Germany Plans Boom in Coal-Fired Power Plants

Premier, Dalton McGuinty powers a press conference with wind energy



Wind Energy – Can it last? – The Scam Continues For Now

September 13, 2008

Can it last?

On the back of the BBC having a go at subsidy wind farms, we now have The Sunday Telegraph joining the battle.

This paper is retailing a report from the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) which asserts that wind is failing to deliver value for money and distorting the development of other renewable energy sources. Furthermore, excessive subsidies make them an expensive and inefficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The report is actually written by John Constable, of REF, and Robert Barfoot, the chairman of the North Devon branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. And even this has a greenie tinge as they say the subsidy scheme is encouraging energy firms to build as many wind farms as possible because it is more profitable than investing in other more expensive forms of renewable technology, such as wave power.

Actually, the main problem is that the generosity of the subsidy scheme is diverting cash from investment in longer-term schemes such as nuclear, and also driving generators to invest in increasingly expensive gas, this being the most suitable back-up for wind.

Nevertheless, the report authors say: “The market for renewable energy is an artificial one created and maintained by government legislation. The question is whether this consumer-derived money is well spent. It is worth noting that the excessive subsidy offered to onshore wind development has drawn developers even to sites where the wind resource is very weak and the environmental impact severe.”

Full report at EU Referendum

Todays Headlines From National Wind Watch

August 27, 2008

Read the news about wind farms that you won’t see on the main stream media. Find out whats going on in the wind industry any where in the world It’s all about politics. Wind  and politics – they go together.

The Problems With On-Grid Wind Power

August 26, 2008

From Maxedoutmama

Here is a paper for dullards like me who didn’t understand the implications of trying to hook highly variable wind power into a power grid. The bottom line is that effective usage is low and that actual replacement effect is even lower:

A power station takes days to start producing electricity from a cold start. Time is needed to boil the water, to superheat the steam, to warm all the components of the power station, and to spin the turbogenerators up to operating speed.

Each power station is designed to provide an output of electricity. It can only provide very little more or very little less than this output (i.e., a power station has a “low turndown ratio”).

The problem of matching electricity supply to varying demand is overcome by operating power stations in three modes called “base load,” “generation,” and “spinning standby.”

Some power stations operate all the time providing electricity to the grid, and they are said to provide “base load.”

Other power stations also operate all the time but do not provide electricity all the time. They burn (or fission) their fuel to boil water and superheat the resulting steam which is fed to the steam turbines that are thus kept hot and spinning all the time. Of course, they emit all the emissions from use of their fuel all the time. But some of this time they dump heat from their cooling towers instead of generating electricity, and they are then said to be operating “spinning standby.”

One or more power stations can be instantly switched from spinning standby to provide electricity to match an increase to demand for electricity. It is said to be operating “generation” when it is providing electricity. Power stations are switched between spinning standby and generation as demand for electricity changes.

Thus the grid operator manages the system to match supply with demand for electricity by switching power stations between “generation” and “spinning standby.”

So if you are installing a bunch of new coal power plants to handle load, you will really be running them all the time with very little savings of fossil fuels. You can control some of the grid surge by diverting the power production away from the grid when your wind kicks in, but that of course doesn’t change fuel consumption very much.

Read the full report here. Maxedoutmama

Wind turbine marketers are full of hot air

July 11, 2008

Editor:
As happy as I am to see this article show up in a “Mainstream Canadian Newspaper”, I still have to ask-why has it taken so long to expose the scam that is the wind industry?
Hell, Enron started this scam years ago. Google- Enron, Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton. Like the media never noticed what was going on.

I’ve noticed the Globe and Mail reading my blog lately ‘site tracker’ and that’s good. But, why does it take so long to get a story out. People have been sending the mainstream papers this same information for years. Why have they remained silent for so long?

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted, landscapes ruined and peoples lives destroyed, while the media sat on the information.
I called the head office of CanWea two years ago this coming Nov. I told them the wind scam would be shut down within two years. I still believe it is possible.
It’s time for journalists to shake the cobwebs from their brains, remember the journalistic oath and get back to doing what they are supposed to do- inform the public of the truth.

Leave the lies and bullshit to the politicians and industry.
As J. Lennon said “Just give me the truth”

Anyway, I thank Mr. Reynolds for this story. Good work-even if it’s years late.

NEIL REYNOLDS

Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Republican presidential candidate
Senator John McCain travelled to Oregon in mid-May to deliver the
definitive climate change speech of his campaign. He spoke in Portland,
at the U.S. headquarters of Vestas Wind Systems AS, a Danish company
that markets wind turbines around the world. He started on a
self-deprecating note. “Today is a kind of test run for this company,”
he said. “They’ve got wind technicians here, wind studies and all these
wind turbines. But there’s no wind. So now I know why they asked me to
come and give a speech.”

It was perhaps his most perceptive statement of the day. Five
sentences later, Mr. McCain made perhaps his least perceptive. “Wind,”
he said, “is a predictable source of energy.”

Really? Define predictable. Wind turbines operate occasionally with
remarkable efficiency at 100 per cent capacity. More often, they
operate with 20 per cent capacity. Once in a while, they operate with
subzero capacity – taking electricity from the grid to keep themselves
running until they get hit again by a restless wind.

British energy consultant Hugh Sharman, based in Denmark, documented
wind power’s capacity for subzero performance in a report published by
Civil Engineering magazine in 2005. With more wind power per capita
than any other country, Denmark (population 5.4 million) is the world’s
showroom nation for this highly fashionable form of renewable energy.

Why, then, does Denmark export almost all of its wind power – at a
revenue loss? Why, then, does Denmark still operate all of its
conventional coal-fired power plants? In a phrase, Mr. Sharman says,
the reason is Denmark’s “wildly fluctuating wind power.”

It turns out that Denmark’s vast array of turbines often produce
minimal electricity when demand is high, maximum electricity when
demand is low. Basing his analysis on data from a single year (2002),
Mr. Sharman reported that wind power produced less than 1 per cent of
the country’s electricity supply on 54 different days. On one of these
54 days, the wind turbines took more power from the grid than they
produced. (Wind turbines consume considerable electricity whether winds
are blowing or not blowing.)

British author and energy analyst Tony Lodge makes the same point in
a report by the Centre for Policy Studies, a London think tank. “Not a
single conventional power plant has been closed in the period that
Danish wind farms have been developed,” he says. “Because of the
intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants
have had to be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand
for electricity and to provide backup.”

Mr. Lodge says it is not practical to turn coal-fired plants off and
on as winds rise and fall – because ramping them up consumes more fuel
(and emits more carbon dioxide) than running them at a constant rate.
Thus Denmark relies almost exclusively on coal-fired plants for its own
consumption and exports its wind power at whatever off-peak price it
can get.

Only 3.3 per cent of Denmark’s wind power gets “accepted” on the
grid for domestic consumption. In 2003, Denmark exported 84 per cent of
its wind-generated electricity at money-losing rates. And CO{-2}? In
2006, Denmark produced 36 per cent more carbon emissions than the year
before.

Messrs. McCain, Dion and Pickens notwithstanding, winds do not blow
predictably. Without an energy storage battery the size of Mount
Everest, most wind-powered electricity will be wasted and will almost
certainly increase a country’s carbon emissions – albeit inadvertently.
When your power plant operates at only 20 per cent capacity (or less),
you have to build four or five times as many plants as you need. For
reliable backup, you still need either coal, gas or nuclear power – all
of which are cheaper than wind.

The conclusion seems self-evident. Apparently it isn’t. Fortunately,
you can test wind power for yourself. Go outside on a hot and humid
day. Feel the breeze. Or don’t

The Globe and Mail

Junk Science: the wind cries ‘bailout!’

July 10, 2008

Editor: Enron pulled the same scam.

Google-Enron,Al Gore,Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton to appreciate the origins of the wind scam

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens launched a media blitz this week to
announce his plan for us “to escape the grip of foreign oil.” Now he’s
got himself stuck between a crock and a wind farm.

Announced via TV commercials, media interviews, a July 9 Wall Street
Journal op-ed and a Web site, Pickens wants to substitute wind power
for the natural gas used to produce about 22 percent of our electricity
and then to substitute natural gas for the conventional gasoline used
to power vehicles.

Pickens claims this plan can be accomplished within 10 years, reduce
our dependence on foreign oil, reduce the cost of transportation,
create thousands of jobs, reduce our carbon footprint and “build a
bridge to the future, giving us time to develop new technologies.”

It sounds great and gets even better, according to Pickens. Don’t
sweat the cost, he says, “It will be accomplished solely through
private investment with no new consumer or corporate taxes or
government regulation.” What’s not to like?

First, it’s worth noting Pickens’ claim made in the op-ed that his
plan requires no new government regulation. Two sentences later,
however, he calls on Congress to “mandate” wind power and its
subsidies. Next, Pickens relies on a 2008 Department of Energy study
claiming the U.S. could generate 20 percent of its electricity from
wind by 2030.

Setting aside the fact that the report was produced in consultation
with the wind industry, the 20-by-2030 goal is quite fanciful.

Even if wind technology significantly improves, electrical
transmission systems (how electricity gets from the power source to
you) are greatly expanded and environmental obstacles (such as
environmentalists who protest wind turbines as eyesores and
bird-killing machines) can be overcome, the viability of wind power
depends on where, when and how strong the wind blows — none of which is
predictable.

Wind farm-siting depends on the long-term forecasting of wind
patterns, but climate is always changing. When it comes to wind power,
it is not simply “build it and the wind will come.” Even the momentary
loss of wind can be a problem. As Reuters reported on Feb. 27, “Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency.”

The electric grid operator was forced to curtail 1,100 megawatts of
power to customers within 10 minutes. Wind isn’t a standalone power
source. It needs a Plan B for when the wind “just don’t blow.”

This contrasts with coal- or gas-fired electrical power, which can
be produced on demand and as needed. A great benefit of modern
technology is that it liberates us from Mother Nature’s harsh whims.
Pickens wants to re-enslave us with 12th century technology.

Then there’s the cost of the 20-by-2030 goal — $43 billion more than
the cost of non-wind assets, according to the DOE — and this doesn’t
include many billions of dollars more for additional transmission
lines. Could the 20-by-2030 goal even be accomplished?

By Steven Milloy

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He
is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct
scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Fox News

T Boone Pickens Has an Energy Plan for America- So Did Enron

July 9, 2008

T Boone Pickens has an energy plan for America.

Is everybody eating a big bowl of STUPID for breakfast every morning-or what?

Wind backed up with natural gas.
Where have I heard that before?

Oh ya I remember, it was an Enron scam.

Who was involved? Google Enron,Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton.

The Enron -global warming-wind energy scam reminds me of the old Eiffel tower scam.

The con artist convinced people he had a contract to sell the tower for scrap. The scam was so outrageous people believed him.
It worked so good the first time he did it again.

Enron scam repeated- paid for by taxpayer subsidy.

T Boone Pickens is smart, the public- dumb as a box of rocks.

Al Gore is going to save the world and T Boone Pickens is going to fix the energy crisis.

Right.

If you want the truth read Agenda 21-follow the link to Global green agenda.
Another must read is Cloak of Green.
Both found here

Enjoy the day and the scam, but be sure to  open up your eyes.

'Windfarm output is never zero. Sometimes it's less'

July 3, 2008

Editor:This research should, once and for all, answer any questions about wind power.

All pain and no gain for the users of electricity and the environment.
Nothing but a massive con by govt., big business and the media.
Really, what is a wind turbine? A steel stick with a whirligig on top.
Not something I want to depend on for my electrical needs.

Not only is wind a poor way to produce the power required, the turbines are being placed
too close to homes and having a negative affect on people.

Pie in the sky ideas will never provide the power we require. We need real power and we need it now.

Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought

In a just-released article for the journal Energy Policy, titled Will British weather provide reliable electricity?, consulting engineer Jim Oswald and his co-authors model the output to be expected from a large, 25+ gigawatt UK windfarm collection of the type the government says it would like to see in service by 2020. Wind is generally seen as the renewable technology best suited to the UK climate, and so it forms the bulk of most renewables plans for Blighty.

One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at wind power is variability. That is, when the wind drops (or blows too hard) the windmills stop spinning and you get no power. To begin with, Oswald simulates the output rises and falls that might result from a lot of windfarms distributed around the UK by using Met Office archived data from different points up and down the land. Many wind advocates have argued that with enough windfarms, widely enough distributed, you would get more reliable power output as some windmills would always have wind.

Oswald’s analysis says this isn’t true, with calm conditions across pretty much all the UK being fairly regular events.

Analysis from 1996 to 2005 shows similar results: large, rapid, and frequent changes of power output being common occurrences … any national power system has to manage under the worst case conditions likely to occur … These are not extreme cases, whose frequency is so low as to render the events negligible. Rather, these are representative …

If the government succeeds in building its mighty 25 gigawatts of wind base by 2020, according to Oswald’s Met Office data-based model its output will dip to pretty much nothing fairly routinely.

The next line of defence for wind advocates is normally the idea of hooking up the UK’s grid with high-capacity links to those of other European nations, creating a “Supergrid” with wind so widely spread that output would be sure to even out. But Oswald has bad news for that idea, too. He compares his modelled UK big-wind output with that which has been produced in recent times by other European wind bases, particularly the substantial German/Danish one.

Modelled 25 GW British and actual continental EON wind load factors compared.

Ill winds blow nobody any good.

Not only does the large continental wind base exhibit nasty rollercoaster surges in aggregate output, these surges tend to match those to be expected in the UK. When the wind isn’t blowing across most of the UK, it isn’t blowing in Germany, Denmark etc. either. Worse still, this happens in the dead of winter when electricity demand is highest.

There is good agreement between the model and the [real-world European wind power output] data, which further supports the argument that wind output is controlled by the arrival and dispersal of large low-pressure systems moving over the coasts of Western Europe.

Being an engineer, Oswald examines the worst situations that occurred in his time frame – those that engineers would need to design the system to cope with. The nastiest situation that could happen would be early-evening flat calms in winter.

Read the full report

Is wind power a lot of hot air?

May 30, 2008

Editor:
This is part of a response I wrote to a comment from Mark Aug.2007

Mark
Let me try this. I just checked the energy output numbers for the province of Ontario. At 10am today the 400 MW of wind in Ont. were producing 4MW or 1% of their plated capacity. If you think wind is going to power Ontario or anywhere else you are dreaming. Most wind farms are to backed up by natural gas plants. Expensive and great emitters of ground level ozone which in fact is more dangerous than the emissions from the coal plants.
Maybe this will help you understand.
France is powered by 80% nukes 10% fossil fuel and 10% hydro. France is slated for 5000 windmills. You can’t use nukes to back up wind and they only have 10% hydro power. Wind has to have a back up of at least 80%. In order to do this the only option is to add more fossil fuels. So in order for France to use wind they must in fact add to the pollution levels not decrease them.

Ron

atomcat
August 11, 2007

Now some information from France
April 2008

.

Is wind power a lot of hot air?

President of the environmental company, Fédération Environnement Durable, Jean-Louis Butré, has labelled the drive for wind energy “a strategic error on a national scale.” He says wind energy actually increases demands on thermal energy reserves.

He said: “Wind turbines only work 20% of the time so we need to have back-up energy – in France this comes from thermal energy and natural gas, in Germany it comes from burning fossil fuels.

“So the more we rely on wind energy, the more we are actually producing gases which contribute to the ozone effect.”

Mr Butré believes the cost of wind energy is prohibitive.

“Wind energy costs two to three times the price of other forms of electricity, which would result in people paying an extra €200 or €300 for each electricity bill.

The homes of residents living near a turbine may also be worth 30% less.

“France is a country which relies on tourists yet turbines are ruining our landscape.”

Germany, currently the leader in wind energy and considering a ban on nuclear energy, has just ordered the construction of more than 20 power stations using coal as an energy source, as a back-up energy supply.

Expats Kath and Ian Haines moved to the peaceful hamlet of Peusicot near Genouillé (Poitou-Charentes) last year, unaware that a wind park with eight 135m turbines was to be built just 650m from their door.

Now they fear their house will be worth a third of the original price and worry how the turbines will affect their health.

Mr Haines said: “Everyone knew about the turbines but no one – not the mayor, estate agent or members of a local group campaigning against the turbines, said anything until two weeks after we had moved in. It was like a bombshell – we felt devastated.

“We are worried about possible nervous complaints as a result of vibrations from the turbines, and they are supposed to be noisy at night.

“We have been told it will take two years to set up the turbines and we are worried about how large machines and road traffic will fit down the tiny lane.

“We expect our property to drop by at least one third in value. The turbines will affect wildlife, bird migration, everything.”

Wind generated electricity is more expensive to produce, costing between €40 and €55 per megawatt hour compared to coal and gas which cost €30 and €45 per megawatt hour to produce.

The cheapest energy form is nuclear, costing just €26 to produce.

Source The Connexion

Kangaroo Farts Save Planet Earth

December 6, 2007

From the Editor
I have already booked my flight to Australia to get some kangaroo bacteria put into my stomach. It’s a win win situation for me and the world in general. I will be able to travel anywhere in the world by whatever mode of transportation I choose, knowing I will be offsetting my carbon emissions every time I fart. If you really want to do your part to save the world from GLOBAL WARMING contact me and I will sell you some kangaroo bacteria. Every time you fart you can smile knowing you are helping to save Planet Earth.

I just farted and yes I’m smiling

But  I refuse to  smile about the devastation caused  by the wind industry and truly stunned govt. officials.

Kangaroo farts used in global warming battle

Australian scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroos’ flatulence contains no methane and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas.

Scientific literature shows that in addition to creating greenhouse gases, cow farts are linked to at least three deaths due to smokers lighting up in sheds and barns where flatulating cattle were being housed.

While the debate over coal fired power stations rages, research has also shown that cows and sheep can contribute between 14-5% of a country’s methane emissions, which are just as large a contributor to global warming as CO2.

Kangaroo farts used in global warming battle