Posts by oystla

    Siemens has announced a 14 MW offshore wind turbine, the largest in the world. It is gigantic! It beats GE which has a 12 MW unit.


    Since it is offshore, I suppose the capacity factor is higher than 30%. Probably around 40%. Maybe even 50%.

    The record holder in 2019 was Hywind Scotland at 55% cap. Factor. And they are only 6MW turbines.

    At 12MW they probably will reach 60% cap factor. GE states 60% on their 12MW Haliade X.

    Offshore there are more stable wind resources, and the higher they are....

    The largest global challenge on CLEAN energy for all is the global population growth AND general increase in global wealth.

    Both increases global energy consumption.

    And presently we are just in the infancy of electrification of global transport.

    This result in still increase in Liquid fuels for ships, cars, trucks, busses, planes.

    This is the Main reason for fossil fuel increase.


    1.Continue electrify transport sector

    2. Continue expand the electric grid with renewables.

    As shown in below figures both wind and solar is starting to matter. In 2000 they where a joke, not now.

    This cost will reflect carbon footprint of your car.

    absolutely not.

    Cost and CO2 footprint does not correlate.

    As with wind and solar you disregard the economic fact of reduced unit costs as manufacturing of units increase.


    Tesla will shortly announce a million mile battery, and probably at cost competing with IC cars.

    In a few years electric car costs less than IC, have short charging times and longer distance between charge.

    Lower OPEX and Similar CAPEX makes the choice Easy.

    In Norway an electric Renault Zoe and a gasoline Renault Clio cost the same, 22000 USD.

    The range of the Zoe is not bad at 400km, but it takes 30 min to charge 150 km distance, which is too slow still. Mostly a town car yet then.

    But batteries improve fast now.

    Sorry to be boring but we have to simply lose our cars, ride around on electric motorcycles and throw away or at least recycle all our jet planes. The silly factors of using electric cars is that you are still using the same amount of energy to recharge them by burning fossil fuels. Makes no difference but reduces only local pollution in cities. Sorry Elon Musk but your tesla is an anachronism, outdated tech at least and far far too expensive for the average budget. Maybe you should launch the rest of them into outer space, along with all the nuclear weapons that threaten the human race.


    And to prove my point, lets look at the numbers,

    CO2 intensity in european grid varies from country to country, like 204 g/KWh in UK, 46 g/KWh in France, 377 g/KWh in Germany.

    Lets use German number further:

    In 2018 New European passenger cars had an average emission factor of 120 g/KM.

    In Germany the Tesla model 3 emission factor will be:

    160 wh/KM * 377 g/KWh = 60 g/ km.

    So Tesla model 3 has 50% of the average emissions Even with Germany mostly Coal grid.

    And for lifecycle CO2 emissions, we have seen reports that Ev's will be far better than IC's.

    And also, what kills IC's are often expensive engine repairs, So Electric cars will last many times longer than IC's.

    My mother in law still have a washing maschine running from 1960 😁

    But we aren't at the beginning - first generation of wind plants already waits for its renewal

    15 years ago solar and wind was a joke.

    And that is when subsidies where high.

    So yes the last 20 years was the beginning.

    And now we are at the end of the beginning.

    Today subsidies are almost gone.

    I predict subsidies are totally gone within 5 years. And that is when global solar is bigger than global nuclear, which still will require large subsidies.

    Didn't we talk long enough that "renewables" should generate subsidizes and profit instead of consuming it?

    haha, you keep showing a graph you do not understand.

    And as I told you, all technologies require subsidies in the beginning, but now (as I showed) we see an increasing number of wind and solar plants built without subsidies.

    Strange however, that Nuclear still require subsidies 60 years after the start.

    I'd say instead, it grows as far as economical situation allows.


    Ref, my previous post that explains the situasion.

    When the global yearly increase in electricity demand is around 2,5%, and the growth of renewables is from 15 to 25% yearly it means renewables will overtake more ans more of other energy sources.

    In a few years Solar and wind is larger than nuclear, then Hydro power, then coal....

    And in latest design you can combine farming and solar plants 😉

    Of course - just because of it the question whether "renewables" do really curb the fossil fuel consumption is so imminent. And until share of fossils on energy generation remains steady, then it's apparent, that they don't do it.

    This statement from Zephir clearly illustrate what he misunderstand:

    - Global economic growth means higher electricity consumption in rich countries and in poor countries.

    - Global population growth also increase electricity consumption

    These facts Lead to an average growth of global electricity of around 2,5% pr. Year the last 5 years.

    ZEPHIR think there is no growth it seems.

    No then,, is the growth of solar and wind high enough to supply ALL the yearly 2,5% growth of total electricity consumption?

    No, not quite yet. BUT;

    Solar growth is around 24% pr. Year and wind grows around 15% pr Year.

    So it is much higher than total growth.

    This means that within a few years Wind and Solar ALONE can supply ALL the yearly growth AND assist in reducing COAL consumption.

    The point is keeping solar and wind grows faster than total global growth.

    That will Lead to Solar and wind overtake coal at some point in time.

    And coal is the most important pollutant we need to attack first.

    Then we need to electrify all global transport to remove Liquid fuels.

    you make no sence.

    In the infancy all technologies required subsidies, Until costs have come down, either caused by increased demand and production or material costs have come down.

    And now wind farms can be built an increasing amount of places without subsidies.

    Like in UK…ighlands-islands-51325543

    while the New Hinkley Point nuclear project in UK require very large subsidies.....still 60 years since the technology was invented.

    EU dependency on fossil fuel imports on rise despite energy consumption decrease - I'm not proposing or insisting it - I'm explaining, why it is so (EU also utilizes largest portion of "renewables")

    you refer to an article but do not understand what it says 😉

    And your article refer to 2015 data, it's old when changes happen exponentially 😉

    And you show statistics but do not understand them 😉.

    But you may read my earlier posts on the issue 😉

    Times have change. Solar had the break through about 5 years ago in average but oh surprise it depends on the geographical, political and economic environment. I would say in North Norway it will never be a success...

    ..or may be not.

    The University of Tromsø in the far north of Norway tested panels in 2018, panels at different angels and also bifacial panels that are becoming popular.

    A positive factor in the north is 10% increased efficiency for 20 degC reduced temperature....And fixed bifacial panels may use reflection from the snow behind, and the night sun during summertime...

    In one year run (which they say was an average year wrt clouds and sun), they achieved 960 KWh pr. KW panel.

    This is comparable with places further south where clouds are normal, like parts of UK or north of Germany.

    As cost come further down it is not unlikely we will see the first grid scale solar plants north of the polar circle 😎

    We can also illustrate the growth of wind and solar this way:

    In 2019 wind+ solar produced 272 TWh more electricity than 2018.

    This growth equals = 272 000 GWh / 24 / 365 = 31 GW installed power running 24/7

    Nuclear regularity is around 92% , i.e 31/0,92= 34 GW

    So, the GROWTH of wind and solar alone represented adding approximately 34 Nuclear reactors every year.

    And since growth also accelerate, this equivalent number will only increase in the years ahead.

    Therefore I am a renewable optimist 😉

    Of course, after TAX used to subsidize the "renewables". One could make these money by burning or selling fossil fuels instead - this amount of coal corresponds the carbon footprint of renewables.

    No, as I explained taxes are used to run the society, not renewables.

    Denmark also have the highest prices on cars, but that also has nothing to with renwables.

    Also Norway has high tax on power, but we have only Cheap Hydro power, so also here taxes are used to run our social benefit system 😉

    And here is the real truth on electricity prices:

    Denmark is part of nordpool in the figure Below and have the lowest market price, and Germany has lower electricity prices than nuclear France.