Re: How Africa's desert sun can bring Europe power

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 20:11:37 -0800 (PST), LongmuirG <LongmuirG@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

T. Keating was asked about his claim of high EROEI for wind, solar:
Any source for that claim?

T. Keating responded (in part):
Large Wind turbines are already producing energy in the 80 to 1 EROEI
range. See.

http://www.windpower.org/media(444,1033)/the_energy_balance_of_modern...

Mr. K -- I am sure that you are a decent guy, but that report was
written for the wind energy industry, based on work done in Denmark
which is pushing export of Danish wind turbines. If you saw something
about oil written by ExxonMobil, would you be so quick to accept it
uncritically? That is not to say the report should be dismissed,
simply that the prudent reader should acknowledge the source. For
some strange reason, the authors also seem to complicate the report
unnecessarily by using different units for energy investment and
energy production.

What's your problem?? You really can't get a simpler than a
Generator + wings? Nearly all other power sources (fossil/nuclear)
need a continuous feedstock of energy intensive, hard to find, fuel.

Nearly all of the Fossil/Nuclear sources must endure an efficiency
draining (50 to 70%) transition from thermal to mechanical energy..

Each energy source uses a Generator/enigne as it's final energy
production step. Generator lifespan is mostly determined by it's
usage.


But let's assume the report is correct, and that a windmill over its
life will produce about 80 times the energy invested in it. So why
are wind factories found only where they are given direct & indirect
subsidies? Why aren't people prepared to pay high fees to get the
chance to build them?

Any wind subsidy helps to overcome the vast subsidies the
conventional fuel sources have already received.
I.E. In order to establish a new industry, one must overcome the
advantages already enjoyed by the entrenched industry.

Wind power doesn't receive all that much in a subsidies and the
resulting product will yield ~20x more in taxes than it receives. (*1)


I suspect the answer is that the report makes optimistic assumptions
-- like 20 years trouble-free life; like the way they choose to
account for recycling (giving them an energy gain).

Oil, Coal, NG, Nuclear all enjoy high levels of subsides, (DOD
expenses, pollution, RightOfWays, insurance, etc) .

Now with subsidies, you are talking fancy accounting again. The oil
industry pays a lot of taxes; governments hand a small part of those
taxes back to the industry with strings attached to get the industry
to make certain investments.

In the US between the governmental entities collect 55 to 60 billion
dollars in fuel taxes per annum. Most of that revenue is spent on
infrastructure to support roadway/bridge construction & maintenance.
Which in turn promotes additional fuel use. Net effect, it's not
really a tax when the funds end up supporting the industry. (*)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1139.html
Note: charts don't show the recent run up in windfall Oil company
profits (4 to 5x fuel taxes)...

In Europe, Governments place a high tax burden on fuel in order to
help fund universal heath care.. (Now that's a real tax.)

Not quite the same as Big Wind, where
the industry pays little in taxes and gets money from the government

Wind utilities property taxes just like anyone else.
They pay corporate taxes just like any other company.. (*)
Same goes the electricity that is produced and then later
consumed. In my area the total taxes on electricity(*1) run in the
20% range, with almost NONE of those funds being reinvested into
infrastructure to promote electrical use.

As for the meager (couple of billion dollars) in Wind/PV subsidies,
it's long overdue. We better get real smart about our energy sources
or the Earth has got a real nasty surprise for humanity.

*note: Our federal government derives 80 to 85% of it's funding from
Income and SS taxes. ~15% from corporate income taxes.

Side bar.. The estimated environmental (GW) damages to the US by
oxidizing oil is in the $500 per barrel range.. Oxidizing coal is in
the dollar per pound range.

directly & from consumers indirectly through mandated purchases at
premium rates. Not quite the same thing.

Equally, people have argued that US Defence expenditures are in part a
subsidy for oil (protecting supplies). But the EU imports more or
less the same amount of oil as the US, yet EU defence expenditures are
very much smaller. And Russia exports substantial amounts of oil, and
yet its defence expenditures are substantial & growing. What is the
basis for claiming that defense expenditures are a subsidy for oil
imports?

How about the subsidy of protecting the sea lanes around the
world?? Isn't it odd that the US is the only ones who has 11 Carrier
battle groups plus another 10 amphibious assault ships (VTOL
carriers).

DOD expenditures for all that hardware and personal at least ~200
Billion per year. That's enough subsidy to add $56 to each barrel of
oil we import. Lastly, all of those other countries are just piggy
backing on our expenditure because their is marginal utiltity/value
in maintaining a large secondary capability. (We should be imposing
major tariffs on all global shipping to offset our costs.)

Lastly we should not forget the trillion dollar cost we've run up,
(that bill is still going up), in order to control Iraq's Oil.

Note: Initially we had allies, but most of them have since withdrawn
after the immoral truth was revealed.


There is a disconnect between claims that wind, solar have high EROEI
and what we can see in the world around us. Just for comparison,

The disconnect occurs because a vast majority of people of
scientifically illiterate, thus they of rely on other peoples
somewhat dated and financially biased statements.

Both Wind and Solar have some inherent advantages.

1. They're relatively simple machines.. (A generator with
wings..or a flat panel oriented towards the sun.)
2. Have a long lifespan requiring little maintenance.
3. Use naturally reoccurring energy sources. (Zero depletion)
4. Very low material consumption.
(Nearly all materials used in their construction remain's
intact/reusable at the end of it's initial lifespan.)


people claim that nuclear fission has a high EROEI, yet nuclear
constrruction is in the doldrums in much of the West. However, we can

One typical flaw that many fossil/N promoters use is that they
stop their calculation using thermal energy output as a baseline,
claiming nuclear has 15 to 1 EROEI (Thermally). But raw thermal
output is rarely a usable in our society. The last step, converting
low grade thermal energy into higher order electrical energy (~real
work) involves significant losses. As a consequence nuclear's
thermal EROEI of 15 to 1 is divided by a factor of 3, which reduces
nuclear's EROEI down to 5:1.

Note: Oil depletion/decreasing EROEI is impacting the EROEI of the
other energy sources. Some now claim that EROEI for nuclear is down
to 4:1.

Meanwhile, nearly all renewables PV, hydro, Wind directly convert
that renewable energy source into electrical energy (~real work). .

Another typical flaw presented by solar detractors is that they
often based their estimates on invalid assumptions. I.E. Using lower
48 solar flux average, fixed panel angle for the PV EROEI
calculations. Nearly every other energy source we employ is located
based on optimal site specific characteristics, centered over oil/gas
field/coal bed, Proximity to rail line, rivers, cities/pipelines,
etc.. So why is solar excluded from it's optimized usage?

understand why nuclear plants are not getting built -- political &
regulatory obstacles. Where that kind of political correctness does
not exist (China, Russia, France, Finland, etc), nuclear plants are
getting built.

They just haven't learned their lessons yet.
What can go wrong, will go wrong!

Eventually, economic pressures(cutting corners) will cause a
confluence of multiple errors. (poorly trained operators, 2 or 3
deferred maintenance items, plus another unexpected event..)

Last month an armed group of rebels/theives(?) seized the control
room of an operating Nuclear power reactor in South Africa.


If we are going to talk meaningfully about EROEI for wind, etc, we
really need more data, based on real operating experience and
validated by independent organizations.

You're not going to find it..

1. EROEI is constantly changing.
Depletion, technology changes, assumptions, dependencies.

2. Bias by whomever point of view they're supporting.
(profit seekers.)

3. There is no profit in producing an honest accounting.
Trust the people who don't have a profit motive before
trusting those who have vested interests.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT:Re: IMHO, saving fuel needs to start at the top!
    ... >> going to go over and sometime along the way a different system of fuel ... > wings that is cheap and as plentiful as oil that can be used to fuel ... These taxes are ... when energy is cheap and abundant, ...
    (alt.fashion)
  • Re: OT:Re: IMHO, saving fuel needs to start at the top!
    ... wings that is cheap and as plentiful as oil that can be used to fuel ... Just google peak oil and do the research and you'll see what I ... These taxes are ... when energy is cheap and abundant, ...
    (alt.fashion)
  • Re: EROI
    ... EROEI people in large cities will start growing vegetables using ... And with peak oil; we don't have to worry about oil 'running out' this year or next. ... I do however offer advice that you can use with as much or as little leverage as you wish. ... the world is not going to run out of energy in the near future. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Biomass to energy
    ... seem to be as much effort put into figuring out EROEI as there has been ... for corn ethanol. ... when using ethanol vs oil. ... Problem is that energy and land expenditures ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) problem with pumping oil
    ... Your oil well has stopped flowing an you need to use a pump. ... energy inputted is that required to lift the oil, ... calculate the EROEI for a 5000 ft. ... crude oil divided by this number. ...
    (sci.physics)