The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
One striking moment at the conference was the call from both Vestas and Areva Renewables for "predictability" within support schemes and overall policy, so that investments can take place. It were as if energy policy, commitment to emissions reductions, Kyoto had never happened and that renewable market was a fringe operation.
the main reason there is not enough manufacturing capacity is because the US has an appalling track record in supporting the industry: 3 times over the past decade, Congress allowed the main regulatory instrument, the PTC, to elapse, causing a catastrophic drop in installations: ... There is no secret: the only way to have manufacturing investment in an industry which needs no subsidies, but a specific regulatory framework is to have stable policies and, dare I say it, an industrial policy to promote both the wind industry (a good thing in itself) and the wind turbine manufacturing industry.
...
There is no secret: the only way to have manufacturing investment in an industry which needs no subsidies, but a specific regulatory framework is to have stable policies and, dare I say it, an industrial policy to promote both the wind industry (a good thing in itself) and the wind turbine manufacturing industry.
You mean aesthetically?
Aesthetically, I like it less when dozens of windmills are clearly in rows -- viewed from certain directions, that really obstructs view and makes for an 'industrial' appearance. Single or smaller groups of windmills placed haphazardly feel more natural. [My 'standards' for both are on the plains West of Vienna where I travel often.]
Non-aesthetically, to block single windmills would mean to block farmers and co-ops from starting projects of their own and limiting it to utilities/major investors only, and I would be very much against that. Renewable energy as distributed power has the extra qualities of 'democratising' electricity production, and boosting a rural economy depressed by the pressure on prices in agriculture. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Whereas I've long been a fan of the idea of "democratising" energy production as opposed to keeping it centralised, I have not ever read an analysis that effectively enlists the benefits or arguments whether it is at all realisable.
How realisable is it to add a remaining 97 percent through de-centralised energy production? And if realisable, what are the benefits compared to centralised energy production?
Total durable energy production: 3.4 % Total durable electricity production: 7.5%
Source.
Same question, just for 92% instead of 97%.
I'll take this as "I don't know" and keep on rooting for big wind farms in the meantime.
Huh!? I repeat: I don't see what distributed power has to do with the provision of high grid penetration. The only issue I can see is distributing intermittency-caused local surpluses/mitigating intermittency-caused local shortages, which leads straight to intermittency. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
True, some countries in the EU don't use this tenet, but the new directive has been trying to streamline support schemes. Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 1 comment
by Oui - May 13 65 comments
by Carrie - Apr 30 7 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 272 comments
by Oui - May 2712 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 231 comment
by Oui - May 1365 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 449 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - May 29 comments
by gmoke - May 1
by Oui - Apr 30257 comments
by Carrie - Apr 307 comments
by Oui - Apr 2644 comments
by Oui - Apr 879 comments
by Oui - Mar 19143 comments