Skip to main content

View Diary: New German Data Shows No End in Sight for Coal (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You mean the low increase in wind that they (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrooth, cris0000, 6412093, Lawrence

    distorted.  The report itself actually says that the reason wind dropped was simply due to a change in weather patterns this year that favored run-of-the-river hydro over wind.  They still got the power, just from a different type of renewable plant.

    The concept of "maximum has been extracted from the baltic winds" is laughable.  Multiple studies have shown that the planet has enough wind energy to power the entire planet an order of magnitude or more over, with current technology.  The Baltic is no exception - even in the windy Baltic, penetration is still proportionally low.

    The fact that Germany added 1% to its wind capacity this year has literally no bearing on Fukushima.  Why?  Because wind farms aren't built that fast.  From inception to planning to construction to installation to grid production, a wind farm takes about 1-8 years, with an average in the ballpark of 2-3.  Clearly post-Fukushima politics (which themselves took time to clear up) have nothing to do with what was generating power over the course of 2012.

    •  Gee, I don't know (0+ / 0-)

      about your stats.  Here in the NW, a big wind farm gets built in about one year.  Why would it take 8 years?

       There are specialty contractors who blade open roads and windmill pads, weld together towers, wire in turbines, and get linemen to connect to the grid, in a matter of months.

      The $380 million, 229 MW Wild Horse wind farm east of Seattle took 14 months to build, according to the 9/09 issue of Wind Systems magazine.

      That's one reason I like wind, it gets into the grid quick.  A nuke could take 3-5 years just to build it.  Same for coal. Gas takes about 2 years.  Those big solar construction jobs  in the South Cal desert have been going on for about 2 years now.

      Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

      by 6412093 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:44:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Offshore wind projects take up to 8 years, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        translatorpro, splashy

        especially when they are in depths of 40 meters, which is about the average depth that German offshore wind farms are being built in.

        I doubt that there's an even remotely safe nuke plant that can be built in 3 to 5 years.  That's what the nuke industry likes to promise, but the reality is that they take ten or more years to build.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:38:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK (0+ / 0-)

          offshore wind would take awhile.

           We'll see how long it takes to build the ongoing Vogtle nukes in Georgia.   They are fabricating many modular parts offsite in Louisiana and will transport those to the plant site to be bolted together, if there's enough water in the Savannah River to get a barge through.

          The prefabbing is supposed to save time but the NRC was complaining about the low quality of some of the parts.

          Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

          by 6412093 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:30:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Construction time is actually one of the lower (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        translatorpro, splashy

        portions of the total time.  I've heard of small farms being built in as little a two months. Conception, planning, studies, permitting, etc take quite a bit of time on their own, however.  It's not just that a person decides one day, "hey, I want another wind farm!" and a couple months later, there it is.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site