CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Power Australia wind turbines via Shutterstock

Published on May 8th, 2013 | by Guest Contributor

61

Global Fund Backs Cheap Australian Wind As Local Firms Head Abroad

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

May 8th, 2013 by  

This story first appeared on Renew Economy
by Sophie Vorrath

At a time when Australian wind energy companies are turning their focus to overseas markets in the search for growth opportunities, a billion-dollar global private equity fund has announced an investment of $75 million in wind power in Australia.

Denham Capital Management, a $7.3 billion US-based fund focused on mining and energy, announced on Tuesday that it had invested $75 million in a 1 GW portfolio of Australian wind power projects currently under development. Part of the deal, which remains subject to procedural closing conditions, will see Denham join existing project sponsors Enersis Australia, National Power, and Kato Capital to create a separate entity called OneWind Australia.

Australia wind turbines via Shutterstock

Image Credit: Australia wind turbines via Shutterstock

Denham’s arrival on the scene is hoped to accelerate the development of these projects, with an initial focus on the late-stage development and financing of several of them, including Glen Innes, a 100 MW wind farm in NSW; Lincoln Gap, a 250 MW project in South Australia; and Cattle Hill, a 240 MW development in Tasmania.

Denham has already moved to take advantage of Australia’s “metals and minerals opportunities” – as the firm’s managing partner and co-president and head of its global Power and Renewables team, Scott Mackin, has put it – and opened an office in Perth last November.

So the addition of wind assets from Australia – where, as Mackin has also pointed out, generation from windmills has become cheaper than that from coal – seems fairly obvious.

But where a global equity firm like Denham sees promise, local firms appear to find uncertainty and roadblocks. Fairfax newspapers report today that wind energy technology firm Windlab Systems – a privately held company spun off from the CSIRO in 2003 – has been prompted to look overseas for growth markets, due to ongoing uncertainty over Australia’s renewable energy policies.

Indeed, this week Windlab signs power purchase agreements for two of the largest wind farms in South Africa, which will have a combined capacity of 226 MW and account for about a fifth of the nation’s 1200 MW in wind energy capacity planned for the next three years.

“Everyone’s been holding their powder dry as to how these (issues) will play out,” Roger Price, Windlab’s chief executive officer, told Fairfax news, referring to uncertainty over the RET in this election year, with the current (favourable) policy set to be reviewed again next year, and Coalition yet to commit to current terms. Making serious local investment proved difficult, Price said, “if the policy levers are being moved on an 18-24 month basis.”

Combine this policy uncertainty with what Price describes as “by far the most aggressive planning laws in the world” – a reference to Victoria’s recently amended wind farm siting regulations, which he adds were crafted using “very little scientific basis” – and it becomes pretty clear why companies like Windlab are seeking foreign climes.

All this aside – and presuming the RET is retained as is – Price says wind energy still has significant potential in Australia, with construction seen ramping up between 2015-20. “We still expect Australia to be 25 – 35 per cent of our business over time,” he said.

For Denham Capital, the falling cost of power generation from wind turbines, as coal and gas-fired electricity becomes more expensive, has been part of the attraction.

“Wind energy is now cheaper than new build fossil-fuel generation in Australia,” Mackin told Bloomberg in a telephone interview. And the company is currently studying other markets where wind is competing with fossil fuels.

Bloomberg reports that Denham plans to bid in electricity auctions in Brazil through its local Rio Energy unit, and – like Windlab – sees potential in South Africa, where networks are struggling to meet demand as the country embarks on a shift to renewables to curb its reliance on coal.

In Australia, Denham plans to sign loans for phases of wind farm developments later this year or early next year with the first project operational in 2015, Mackin says.

The company is appointing Michael Toke as managing director of OneWind Australia, which will operate out of Sydney. Toke has more than 10 years of experience in the wind energy industry, most recently serving as CEO of Cannon Power Group, a California company that has successfully developed, financed and constructed more than 1GW of wind capacity globally.

Enersis Australia’s shareholder group includes the team that successfully developed and built more than 1GW of wind power projects in Europe, while National Power has developed more than 700MW currently operating in Australia. Kato Capital’s principals have been involved in more than 750MW of wind power projects globally. The existing sponsors have been developing the OneWind Australian projects together since 2009.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

is many, many people. We publish a number of guest posts from experts in a large variety of fields. This is our contributor account for those special people. :D



  • Pingback: Australia Approaches 22% Renewables By 2020, 51% by 2050 |

  • Lisa

    Let me point the finger at the USA and running oil heaters and furnaces underneath that basements for a century, yet have not converted those units to grid wind or solar power, why because they cannot do it, because there is no such renewable energy which could supply with such energy for 24 hours seven days a week 365 days a year.

    • trevor

      Okey-do-key and if they can’t blooming and run on renewable energy like they claimed USA then they should wear Poler bear suits if they want to live there. They can’t continue to make the excuse of burning fossil fuel to live a comfortable life on grid in their home. And continue to ignore climate change through their lifestyle. Other countries have made sacrifices, like carbon tax, reduced energy consumption, we have not seen this yet, in the USA homes, or have they stop using oil heating in there basements.

  • beernotwar

    Can we trust capital firms like Denham to actually build out wind as rapidly as a fair cost-benefit analysis would dictate when they also hold oil and gas investments? Wouldn’t the smart play for Denham be to purchase the rights to build in choice wind locations, then drag their feet on developing those opportunities while they maximize profits from their fossil-fuel investments? Once the fossil fuel opportunities are gone (played out, regulated out or the price falls too much) they build wind.

    It’s not paranoia…that’s how capitalists think.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Is there actually a shortage of good wind sites? Certainly not in the US.

      My guess is that any company that tries to stick with fossil fuels is dancing with death. Affordable grid storage and longer range EV batteries and the bottom is likely to fall out from under the fossil fuel industry.

      • George Stevens

        Bob_Wallace

        Please read this:

        http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/rethinking-wind-power

        An electrical grid “dominated” by wind and solar is a little bit farther from reach than you so enthusastically pronounce in the comments section of all of these articles. Its kind of making me wonder if you have significant financial ties to the industry.

        We need clean energy, that is for sure, but we need to be realistic about the issue. You misinforming others about the true capabilities of wind and solar is not much better than others who falsely claim that they are worthless. Wind and solar can do something, but they certainly have scalability issues and claiming that current renewables can replace conventional baseload power at this point is a bit delusional.

        • Bob_Wallace

          OK, I read it. When someone makes an over the top statement such as “It’s clear the theoretical upper limit to wind power is huge, if you don’t care about the impacts of covering the whole world with wind turbines,” my eyes tend to roll.

          We’ll have to wait and see what happens when his math gets reviewed. It’s too bad he didn’t do the rest of the work and see if his low-ball estimates would actually cause us problems.

          He could have started with Jacobson and Delucchi –

          “The (U.S. Energy Information Administration) projects that in 2030 the world will require 16.9 TW of power as global population and living standards rise,….”

          “Even if demand did rise to 16.9 TW, WWS sources could provide far more power. Detailed studies by us and others indicate that energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW. ”

          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030&page=2

          Using his midpoints (0.5 to 1 and 2 to 7) of 0.75 and 4.5 we see that he is estimating that we have only 17% as much wind potential.

          17% of 1,700 TW is 289 TW. That is 17x more wind potential than is needed to provide 100% of our electricity from wind.

          Using his worst case estimates (0.5 and 7) numbers we get 7% as opposed to 17%.

          7% of 1,700 TS is 119 TW. Oops, sorry Keith and George, still far more than we need. 7x more.

          That bit of critical thinking and number crunching took me about five minutes.

          I see you’re still having problems keeping yourself from attacking those who point out the problems with your posts.

          Work harder, please.

          • George Stevens

            Bob_Wallace

            So I am supposed to simply value your back of napkin math over the conclusions of a peer-reviewed study from a doctor of physics at Harvard? There was a formal and funded study done on the subject, the comments weren’t just made in jest. Here’s a link to that study:

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/015021/

            Sure, if we consider wind resources of the entire planet the number is monumental, but the very very important thing to remember, which you are ignoring, is that for reasons of economics, engineering, land accessibility, etc only a portion of the total wind resource is actually extractable. Creating the majority of our power from wind would likely require concentrating turbines intensely in regions with high population centers and/or high wind resources, and as the paper states, the regional or even global climate could be compromised as a result.

            It is pretty apparent to me that if we were to pull several TW of energy from global winds by slowing them, then there will be measurable climatic affects. In addition to that problem other issues stand in front of wind turbines “dominating the grid” such as the footprint of all of the turbines, the enormous amount of resources required to make and erect all of the turbines and storage systems required, and the total revamp of the electrical grid required to support such a network. Wind-power clearly lacks the practical scalability to support the entire world’s energy needs.

            I fully support any wind or solar projects and funding already, they reduce emissions and slow the expenditure of rapidly dissipating FF reserves. But the world need’s an additional solution (and a large one at that) if all energy needs are ever to be completely satiated by a clean source. We need to truly keep an “all of the above” energy strategy”.

            “I see you’re still having problems keeping yourself from attacking those who point out the problems with your posts”

            Im not attacking you Bob, I’m just sticking to the facts.

          • Bob_Wallace

            George, I gave you my source and my numbers. Feel free to check for accuracy.

            IMHO Keith has his butt up his rear end.

            Yes, there are some limits on where we can harvest wind but if we’ve got 7 to 17 times more than we need then we’ve got no problems. And do remember, that’s getting 100% of our electricity from wind. Since we’ll almost certainly tap other technologies we could safely double those numbers for back of envelop estimations.

            People do not live in areas of high wind concentration. Take a look at some wind maps.

            You can continue to make your anti-wind arguments but they are simply untrue. We’ve got plenty of resources, the output is cheap and getting cheaper, there is no shortage of materials to build all the wind turbines we would ever need, and on and on and on.

            Considering “all of the above” is exactly what we should do.

            We are considering nuclear and clean coal. Both turn out to be unreasonable. If there is a breakthrough that makes either affordable and safe then we can use some.

            What makes sense right now is wind, solar, hydro and geothermal. It’s looking like tidal will join the list. Biomass/gas certainly play a role.

            There is no major problem with scaling the technologies that work. You make an empty claim.

            I work for no one. I made enough money in my previous profession to retire early and live the lifestyle that pleases me.

            What’s your motivation, George? You work for the coal industry? Have your retirement money invested in coal mines? Get paid by the Koch boys to troll the web? A nuclear worker who is afraid for their future?

            What sort of devious reason brings you to the conversation, George? Why do you continue to play booster-boy for the most expensive and most dangerous energy technologies?

          • George Stevens

            @Bob_Wallace

            Bob, you didn’t read the whole article…. I don’t think Keith’s head is up his bum, I think he is pretty forward thinking. Hear me out….

            The study wasn’t solely about the fact that global wind resources are less than previously estimated. It more importantly stressed that high concentrations of wind turbines can have significant climatic impacts on regional and even global scales because of the extent to which they slow and alter wind. That poses another deployment limitation which you are not taking into consideration. These climatic effects are not existent for the sparsity of installed wind capacity we currently have, the study looks instead at a premise of a high concentration of turbines needed to make large contributions to overall world-wide electrical generation. It seems pretty straightforward that generating TWhs of energy by slowing wind will have adverse climatic effects, and this peer reviewed paper by a qualified physicist at Harvard University pretty much confirms that much is true. If you want to look for a critique of the paper or search for connections the author has to the FF industry, feel free.

            I am 100% pro wind, and fairly certain I know more about the evolution of wind turbine technology than you do, but we need to acknowledge its limitations when it comes to produce all of the energy we need. Clean technologies in addition to wind and solar will be required to make energy production completely clean. and completely clean should be the goal.

            I take issue with how you have commented negatively on numerous occassions to any celan tech being researched or developed that is not in the solar, wind or storage realm. This includes next-gen nuclear, clean coal, etc. Others commenting on clean-technica or greentech media are even more guilty. It is narrow-minded and sickening. For many of you it is as though the goal isn’t to find a solution or group of solutions that can meet world-wide energy demand cleanly, but rather to simply boost public interest in and subsequent business for wind and solar as much as possible. Like I said, public opinion matters a lot, and we need the right message to get out there, and that message is that all solutions being addressed by the DOE are worthy of heavy funding and research. We are far from having a comprehensive and practical clean energy solution.

            Good day.

          • Bob_Wallace

            George, data exists and Keith either failed to look for it or ignored it. Turbines do cause some very localized changes in “weather”. Basically limited to the wind farm area.

            If you’re concerned about building a lot of wind farms screwing up the planet’s weather, consider the number of tall buildings we’ve built and continue to build.

            Hundreds, thousands times more wind interference?

            Even if building a lot of wind farms did change the climate it would be a miniscule change in relation to the number of structures we’ve stuck up into the air.

            And even that small amount would have to be weighed against bringing more fossil fuels to the surface and creating more dangerous nuclear waste.

            You’re fairly certain you know more about wind than I do. And you keep posting easily disproven crap?

            George, you aren’t 100% pro-wind. You’re a spreader of misinformation, whether intentionally or not I can’t tell.

            You claim wind and solar won’t scale when there is research showing they will.

            You take one letter, not a peer-reviewed study but a letter, and decide it more important than numerous published studies.

            When someone points out that the letter fails massively by only applying some simple math you attempt to wave that criticism aside because the letter writer has a position at Harvard.

            I hand you a pile of published research that shows we can run grids off nothing but renewables and storage and you wave them aside because they don’t fit your belief system.

            You’re engaging in cherry-picking in an attempt to support a belief you hold. You’re operating in the same mode as climate change deniers, believer that vaccines cause autism, and all sorts of crackpot beliefs.

            And this is a massive pile of horse shit –

            ” For many of you it is as though the goal isn’t to find a solution or group of solutions that can meet world-wide energy demand cleanly, but rather to boost public interest in and subsequent business for wind and solar as much as possible.”

            Speaking only for myself, I am actively looking for the mix of technologies which brings us the cleanest, safest and least expensive electricity possible.

            I’ve looked very carefully at both nuclear and clean coal. Both fail. Neither of them belong on our future grid.

            I’m tired of your crap, George. You are a closed minded individual who is unable to take on new information. You have formed your opinion and are unable to recognize that your opinion is based on inaccurate “facts”.

            You state that you are the expert when people doing the research and have published peer reviewed research show you wrong.

            Someone who holds your feet to the fire is accused of being in the employ of wind and solar.

            You’re acting despicably, George.

            Clean up your act or please go away.

          • George Stevens

            Bob_Wallace

            Keep it cool Bob. I don’t think this work by Keith is at all “easilty disproven”. The amount of sky scrapers currently in the world and their collective wind-obstruction pales in comparison to the amount of turbines needed to draw TWhs of energy from the wind. The idea that wind turbines have a limit in scalability because of the potential effect they have on climate is very real. The studies you alluded to are very different because they deal with small concentrations of wind that we have currently, to which the effect on climate is negligible.

            If you think you think the opinions of a well renowned Harvard physicist are so easily disproven then you’re being a little narrow-minded. You’re clearly frustrated but lets not get unreasonable. I don’t think my discourse should go elsewhere, my input is valuable right here.

            The Budischak paper about the 100% renewable grid which you tout so proudly, while impressive, is by a student at Rhode Island Technical College…. And you are questioning the merit of the research by a renowned Physicist at Harvard!?

            “Speaking only for myself, I am actively looking for the mix of technologies which brings us the cleanest, safest and least expensive electricity possible”

            You obviously know very little about the capabilities of nuclear if you don’t see any way that it can be part of the energy mix in the future. There are potential solutions for limiting waste to a fraction of what currently exists, needing only 1 uranium enrichment facility for the entire world, and having inherent safety as part of the reactor design.

            http://www.terrapower.com/

            Read it buddy, you might learn something.

          • Bob_Wallace

            George, I’m done arguing with you.

            I’ll just point out that Harvard is not considered a major player in renewable energy and technology in general.

            You continue to spew misinformation.

            None of the authors of the Budischak paper is a student at Rhode Island Technical College.

            You don’t bother to gather any estimates of the amount of tall non-turbine infrastructure, it’s total surface area vs. that of the amount of wind turbines we might build.

            You just declare “George facts”. Your input is damaging to intelligent conversations.

          • George Stevens

            Climate change due to wind obstruction is not really a matter related to renewable energy technology. It is more so a physics and earth sciences problem, which is why the authors were of those disciplines.

            Actually even better yet, Cory Budischak is the instructor in energy management department at Delaware Technical Community College. Like I said, the authors did good work….but there are a lot of other things to be considered that were omitted….

            Wind Turbines are built to obstruct wind, with conventionally 3 very long blades designed to sweep an optimal amount of air. Tall sky scrapers are a very different thing and like I said are not nearly as numerous as the millions of turbines that would be required to power the entire planet. There are an estimated 90,000 sky scrapers world wide, google it. Further study should be done on that end as Keith had suggested…..

            You are done arguing with me because your ideals have been challenged and you don’t know how to respond.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Cory is a Ph.D. candidate at Delaware. He teaches at DTCC to support himself in graduate school.

            Wind turbine blades are angled to the force of the wind, the wind slips by. Buildings present a large and unyielding obstruction the flow of wind.

            Calculate the surface area of those 90k sky scrapers. Add in the millions of tall buildings which do not reach sky scraper status.

            Damnit. I’m getting caught up in your idiotic game again.

          • George Stevens

            Its a good discussion about an important clean energy topic, not an idiotic game.

            Large MW size wind turbines actually experience much higher wind loads (and thus obstruct more wind) than even the tallest skyscrapers. To demonstrate this fact consider that a theoretical 20 MW turbine cannot be built without further design breakthroughs because structural loads are too considerable. The projected hub height of such a turbine is 250 meters and the the blade diameter is 150 meters. Meanwhile, we have been able to erect buildings and non-turbine structures of this height for over a hundred years because the loads are much less severe. Heck there are even buildings over 800 meters. Wind turbine blades are designed to obstruct as much airflow as possible (for the sake of lift) so that they can convert the kinetic energy into rotating kinetic energy and electricity. They are also placed in very windy locations. Skyscrapers are built to minimize wind loads as much as possible while accommodating for the needs of architecture. They are also zoned specifically for regions with low prevailing wind.

            So if we consider that skyscrapers are:

            a) much less numerous (90,000) than the amount of 5 MW wind turbines needed to power the entire world (6 million+).

            b) much less obstructive to wind flow

            c) placed in areas with much lower wind resource

            Then it is obvious that one can’t draw any conclusions about the potential for millions of 5 MW wind turbines to affect the climate based on how global skyscrapers have had no measurable effect.

            “Wind turbine blades are angled to the force of the wind, the wind slips by. Buildings present a large and unyielding obstruction the flow of wind”

            You’re not an engineer, are you?

            This is not an adequate description of how a wind turbine operates. The blades are designed to maximize lift and swept area so that they can rotate against the hugely resistive force of polar opposition created by ultra-powerful permanent magnets in the hub/generator. This rotation against polarity (work) induces an electromotive force (voltage) into the generator conductors. The blades and rotor assembly do not spin freely, they require a high wind force to spin. The wind is slowed as the speed of airflow is converted into the rotating energy of the turbine.

            “Add in the millions of tall buildings which do not reach sky scraper status”

            I am not 100% sure about this but I believe that structures below the boundary layer (where wind speeds are lower and less constant) are more or less negligible when it comes to having a significant climatic impact.

          • Bob_Wallace

            What we have here is a failure of logic….

          • George Stevens

            Bob, if you don’t want to take my word for it I suggest you consult a structural engineer who specializes in wind loads.

            If what I said is at all false then please explain to me how 20 MW turbines would have exceedingly high wind loads (to even be constructed in the first place) even though they are much lower in height than the tallest sky scraper.

            I think you are becoming much like a climate denier.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Calculate the square footage tjhat a nice big wind tower/turbine including the blades presents to the wind. Don’t forget that they aren’t flat.

            Go out and measure the square footage that a typical four story building presents to the wind.

            Contemplate the size of a wind tower footing and the footprint of a typical multistory building.

          • George Stevens

            Common sense might tell you that but aerodynamics aren’t so simple as this Bob. They often say the subjects of lift and drag themselves require a phd to fully understand. Wind shear slows the wind in the case of the flat face of a building in prevailing wind, but allows air flow to continue around the object. lift and drag around a blade is actually designed to slow the wind as much as possible for the sake of rotating force. Blades diameters are also much wider than skyscrapers due to the limits of the slenderness ratio,

            The biggest factor that makes wind turbines more obstructive though is the simple fact that they are intentionally placed in areas of higher prevailing wind and actually rotate to face the direction which it is coming from. They are built to slow the wind.

            With your great enthusiasm for wind perhaps you know an aerodynamical engineer in the industry. Why don’t you seek the opinion of someone like that rather than take the word of myself and a phd physicist at Harvard.

          • Bob_Wallace

            George, I won’t take your word for it.

            As I drive by a fairly small city later today I’ll observe all the buildings that stick up above ground level and I’ll think about how relatively puny wind towers are in comparison.

            You’re grabbing for straws to support your love of nuclear and coal. And failing.

          • George Stevens

            Not at all grabbing straws…

            Several in the scientific community have asserted the same position that if wind capacity were on the scale of TerraWatts there could be negative climatic implications.

            http://www.enn.com/energy/arti

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear

            http://www.livescience.com/762

            You deny this issue even exists and you are no better than a climate denier.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Three dead links George. Did you even read or just copy some links from somewhere?

            You can either real in the attacks or take a vacation.

          • Bob_Wallace
          • George Stevens

            Haha Bob… ok this article from the washingtion post says exactly what I’ve been telling you for the past 1000 words!

            “Now, to pull back a bit, there are real questions about what might happen if we massively scaled up wind farms to produce huge amounts of renewable electricity. After all, wind turbines generate
            power by slowing down winds and capturing their kinetic energy. Build enough wind turbines and that might have an effect on the Earth’s temperature and rainfall patterns.To get a sense for what scientists know about this topic, I called Mark Jacobson, an
            environmental engineer at Stanford who has done a fair bit of modeling work in this area. The key thing to note is that, for now, humanity doesn’t use anywhere near enough wind power to make a big difference to
            global wind patterns.”

            This is precisely what I’ve been saying all along. Of course wind at the current scale has been shown to have negligible effect on climate. It is wind at the TW scale we are talking about.

            So in light of this are you going to deny that there may be something here or can you at least admit that it needs to be studied further as scientists plan on doing?

            yikes

          • Bob_Wallace

            More intellectual dishonesty on your part, George.

            Here’s where this all started…

            “The study wasn’t solely about the fact that global wind resources are less than previously estimated. It more importantly stressed that high concentrations of wind turbines can have significant climatic impacts on regional and even global scales because of the extent to which they slow and alter wind.”

            “Can” is clearly the wrong word, as I pointed out. There is no data to support “can”. Keith was speculating. Actually Keith is shoveling FUD.

            Then, I tried to get you to look at the relative size of less than a million wind turbines vs. the hundreds of millions/billions of structures we’ve already built and which block wind flow. You danced all around that issue trying to obscure the issue.

            Then you cherry-pick part of an article I gave you to read. You omit “(Jacobson) says it’s possible that a massive expansion of wind turbines over both land and sea could even cool the planet somewhat, by slowing the rate at which water evaporates from the soil and enters the atmosphere”.

            And finally, you seem to be unwilling to grasp the larger picture. Wind farms allow us to decrease fossil fuel burning. Even if installing hundreds of thousands of wind farms somehow created small negative climatic changes that pales in what we will do if we continue to burn fossil fuels and add CO2 to our atmosphere and oceans.

          • George Stevens

            Keith did computer modeling to come to his conclusions, that is the data, that is the “can”. It isn’t a unanimous scientific conclusion yet, but there is data from a reputable source.

            If you want to question the Harvard study that is fine, but there is a difference between questioning/suggesting more research be done, and blatantly saying without any supporting facts that the research is completely erroneous. You lose all credibility if you do the latter and its pretty similar to how climate deniers operate.

            “Then, I tried to get you to look at the relative size of less than a million wind turbines vs. the hundreds of millions/billions of structures we’ve already built and which block wind flow. You danced all around that issue trying to obscure the issue.”

            Man-made structures below the boundary layer do impact climate to some extent. Cities effect climate. But as you move up above the boundary layer wind forces are stronger and the impact of structures is likely to be much more significant. First step for you is to learn what the boundary layer is.

            Jacobson could very well be right but he hasn’t yet completed or published a study that rebuts what Keith said, so its just an unsubstantiated opinion at this point. You are cherry-picking unsubstantiated opinion, I used real research. Both sources are reputable so Im sure this whole thing will be investigated much more intensely in years to come.

            Hundreds of thousands of wind-farms MAY be fine, Im not at all saying stop installing wind. I’m just saying we will need other energy solutions as well to completely avoid releasing GHGs in our energy production processes. Im saying stop talking negatively about research and funding of other clean energy technologies.I have caught you doing so on several occasions as moderator of this site and it is totally inappropriate for a person in your position.

          • Bob_Wallace

            ” Im saying stop talking negatively about research and funding of other clean energy technologies.I have caught you doing on several occasions as moderator of this site and it is totally inappropriate for a person in your position and with an environmental conscience.”

            I’m calling bullshit on this claim of yours.

            I have no problems spending reasonable amounts of money on nuclear and clean coal. I’m somewhat skeptical that we will find a way to make either cheap enough or safe enough.

            My consistent position is that we need to install generation which is the least expensive, fastest to come on line and brings the fewest problems with it. Coal and nuclear fail all three criteria.

          • George Stevens

            I don’t think we are really that far off in opinion.
            I agree as well that wind and distributed solar are the best solutions to be deployed today.
            Believe it or not I have worked in the PV industry for several years. You may be pretty current on prices for PV, but I know the technology from the construction and reliability of panels to the various players in the industry. I know solar and its potential very very well. I realize that it will be a big contributor to our energy needs. However, we shouldn’t settle with some of our energy being produced cleanly, it should all be produced cleanly, and we should seriously consider additional technologies to make that happen.

            So until you know the ins and outs of fast reactors and other next gen nuclear reactors, along with clean coal technologies, please please please reserve your judgement. We don’t need public perception of the energy landscape to be any more clouded than it already is. Sites like this should be a place for people to come for unbiased facts, especially from the moderator.

          • Bob_Wallace

            “we shouldn’t settle with some of our energy being produced cleanly, it should all be produced cleanly, and we should seriously consider additional technologies to make that happen”

            Here we do agree. I’m closely watching emerging technologies which offer a promise of cheap and safe renewable energy. One thing that looks quite promising is enhanced geothermal with two new plants having come on line this year. Tidal seems to be working and since the technology is close to that of wind one can speculate tidal will be another cheap electricity source.

            If either prove themselves out then you’ll see me advocating for installing more.

            “So until you know the ins and outs of fast reactors and other next gen nuclear reactors, along with clean coal technologies, please please please reserve your judgement.

            Judgement/fudgement. There are no fast reactors or whatever generation nuclear reactors that have made it past the drawing board. (I’m setting aside IFR because the world does not need more weapon grade nuclear stuff floating around.)

            No one has figured out how to make nuclear or clean coal affordable or safe. Until/unless that happens both should be placed in the same category as unicorn farts. We cannot consider something which does not exist.

          • George Stevens

            Bob_Wallace

            I like nuclear because I think the world may need it, but to what you said I would absolutely 110% consider geothermal and tidal as well. We have wind and solar, they will take off and integrating them into the grid at larger penetrations is a hurdle that we probably have a the where-with-all to solve. But the next step is to realize that at the very least for reasons of land and raw-material preservation there is another piece to the energy puzzle that we will need to be 100% clean. If geothermal or tidal is it then great we don’t need to deal with nuclear enrichment or waste at all. Im fully open to discuss that possibility.

            And the advantages of Geothermal is that it is much less material intensive (as far as fuels or infrastructure) than the other technologies we’ve mentioned. It can also be a form of stored or baseload power, making it a good candidate. The footprint for both tidal and geothermal is much less invasive, one is at sea and the other is underground. both seem like pretty good solutions.

            I am not biased at all, I’ll give up my nuclear dream in a heartbeat if something else looks to fit the bill. But for now I think nuclear is as feasible as anything else… Im always open to and looking for energy new developments…..

          • Bob_Wallace

            Nice job of twisting what I said George.

            I said I was watching enhanced geothermal and tidal. And, unlike clean coal and nuclear, they are showing promise. I did not call for large scale installation.

            We did put some considerable amount of money into solar and it became affordable. Thing is, we’ve put far, far more into nuclear and it keeps on getting more expensive.

            Now, I don’t know that geothermal is less material intensive than either wind or solar. I think it’s safe to say that geothermal is likely more material/energy intensive since its LCOE isn’t as low as the others.

            We aren’t enemies, but I have developed a certain disdain for your overall honesty. You might want to clean up your act a bit.

          • George Stevens

            Geothermal has a higher LCOE than wind or solar because it is an immature technology and the costs of finding resources through drilling has been higher than expected. The market for geothermal is limited to those who own land with suitable sites and access to capital for drilling. The market for solar PV is much larger, and the up-front cost much smaller/more scalable which is why it has fetched much greater investment. If investment were equal for both solar and Geothermal I am pretty confident that geothermal would be an economical way to produce energy by now.

            http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-geothermal-energy-hasn-t-133117570.html

            Geothermal is certainly less material intensive and by that I mean that the amount of material required to draw a large amount of power is very small in comparison to wind-turbines and solar panels. The structure of a MW size geothermal plant is tiny in comparison to PV or wind.

            “I said I was watching enhanced geothermal and tidal. And, unlike clean coal and nuclear, they are showing promise”

            and how exactly doesn’t next generation nuclear show promise? This is the part where you need to do some research and open your mind a little bit before being so negative. Does clean energy that is as cheap as natrual gas not sound promising? Heavy investment by governments and private parties in nuclear R&D has been made based on these projections but I guess they should have consulted with you before wasting their money because you obviously know something they don’t.

            next generation nuclear plants have the potential to be extremely cheap if they can indeed operate reliably by breeding stockpiles of what is now considered nuclear waste. In such a reactor the overall waste products and need for enriched uranium is greatly reduced when compared to conventional reactors. Since non-fissile material could be used the supply is enough to last many many centuries. You may think to yourself “gee nuclear has had such a long history that we obviously must have tried this before and failed so it isn’t worth wasting money on” but the interesting thing is that nuclear is so heavily regulated that innovation has been very very slow, with the conventional reactor design barely changed since the 50s, and the potential of nuclear reactor efficiency is not even close to being realized. The Shockley-Quissier and Betz limits tell us the theoretical efficiencies of solar and wind respectively. The improvements that can be made in solar and wind energy efficiencies are miniscule compared to nuclear, and that is why it is indeed very very promising and the research is worth funding.

            http://www.terrapower.com

            I don’t know the numbers on nuclear investment over the years, if you have them and a link then please share. but one has to consider that we’ve been getting energy from plants around the US for decades for very low cost, the 1.2 GW Palo Verde plant in AZ has been producing baseload energy for decades at 2 cents per kWh or below including capital costs. The only relevant measurement for subsidy is cost/kWh. Of course current plants are expensive, Im not trying to argue otherwise. Im all about future implications.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I’m not going to bother reading past your first sentence because once more you are just making crap up.

            Geothermal power generation is not an immature technology. The first geothermal plant was built over 100 years ago and we were building plants back in the 1950s and 1960s.

          • George Stevens

            Technology maturity is defined by the amount of work and research done in the field and the size and infrastructure of the industry, it has nothing to do with when it was first invented. Drilling for geothermal sources is most definitely an immature technology, and that is why it still holds promise.

            Too bad you didn’t read what I wrote because you would have learned something. You pretty well exposed your closed mindedness and bias in our conversations here. It’s a shame that you are able to hide behind a computer and be so insulting because I am sure if we were in the same room you would be much less unreasonable. And it’s a shame that you hold a position as moderator for this site. I think Zachary could and should do better.

            It doesn’t matter anyhow, you’re old and set in your ways, younger people that care enough can cut through the crud and advocate for smart policy regarding energy.

          • George Stevens
      • Andy

        Not so, Australia has invested large amount of money into wind and solar power, the problem like all problem with renewable energy is that wind and solar power only provides 2 per cent of the total energy loading for one year of the Australian climate. Australia is not a windy climate and therefore it does not make a good investment in wind power if the energy to make the turbine move isn’t there.

        • Ross

          I’ll see your not so and raise you a not so.

          http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_aera_d9aae_002/aeraCh_09.pdf

          “Australia has some of the best wind resources
          in the world, primarily located in western, southwestern, southern and south-eastern coastal regions but extending hundreds of kilometres inland and including highland areas in southeastern Australia. There are large
          areas with average wind speeds suitable for high yield electricity generation.”

        • Jim

          That right No Base Load Power. This site posting have a lot of bogus report that renewable energy will work to power up USA.

    • Ronald Brak

      A fossil fuel company that spent money blocking the development of renewables in such a way would benefit its fossil fuel competitors. If they then tried to pass the hat around to get reimbursed for helping the fossil fuel industry they would get screwed – that’s how captialists think. (I should know, I am one.) Rather than buy prime wind sites, It would probably be much more cost effective for them to buy some ministers dinner and/or give support to anti-wind groups.

    • George Stevens

      @beernotwar:disqus

      Most major renewable energy companies are heavily funded by organizations that primarily make their income from fossil fuels. This clouds up the transition quite a bit. I think whatever is economical wins out, with government regulation making renewable energy quite economical for these companies at the moment.

      • Bob_Wallace

        Prove that claim, George.

        Name those renewable energy companies and their funding sources.

        And do learn something about how we’ve used taxpayer money to build up and support the fossil fuel industry.

        • George Stevens

          well lets see here, who owns Sunpower? TOTAL.

          Chevron is heavily active in wind and solar power plant development.

          BP was a pioneer in solar, and now invests heavily in wind and biofuels.

          GE has huge ties to the FF industry.

          Large investment firms are the primary backers of larger RE manufacturers and projects, but companies related to fossil fuels also play a heavy role and are making a healthy profit.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Inadequate research.

            List the largest 20 to 50 renewable companies and indicate those owned by the fossil fuel industry.

            Cherry-picking is not acceptable.

          • George Stevens

            I was wrong to say that most are heavily funded by those involved in FF. Im doing the research and can’t prove that. Most are funded by independent investment groups – like a Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, etc, with no tie to any specific industry.

            But if you are looking for second on the list for solar and wind investment, that would no doubt be those in the FF industry. We are talking about the biggest companies in the world, it is almost unavoidable that they will have a piece of the next big energy technology regardless of what it is. And more importantly they have the capital to get these factories and projects built.

            I think they are trying to make money based on the regulatory climate, I don’t see a realistic scenario where FF companies would buy solar or wind companies just to sabotage them. Its a capitalist world and the least expensive way of providing energy will win out. Considering regulation sometimes the cheapest way is wind and solar.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I’ll applaud the fact that you did some fact checking and reported what you found. Especially since it was not what you had been claiming.

            Some fossil fuel companies have some involvement in renewable energy. I see nothing wrong with that. They aren’t going to get a position of dominance that would allow them to squash renewables.

            The smart ones, I think, will get enough involvement to allow them to easily move capital away from fossil fuel to renewables as markets change. To expect them to move away from fossil fuels right now when profits are high is unrealistic. Most will stay in the fossil fuel business as long as there is enough money to be made to make it worth their time.

          • George Stevens

            Solar and wind will play a huge role in the future and FF companies want a piece of it, there is no doubt about that.

            But until solar or wind is near the price of natural gas FF companies will have measured involvement and only where immediately profitable.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I see no reason to make that prediction.

            Bethlehem Steel failed to move to electric steel furnaces and rode the open hearth into oblivion.

            Wang owned corporate desktops and poo-pooed personal computers resulting in a business failure.

            Kodak invented digital photography, stuck with film, and went bankrupt.

            Wind is already near the cost of natural gas. Add in risk and wind is cheaper than NG. Risk has real meaning in the financial world.

            An investment in wind locks in the cost of electricity for two to four decades (actually getting cheaper in latter years). It avoids the uncertainty of gas prices.

          • George Stevens

            Yea I’d agree with that. I guess I was just saying that FF companies are more risk averse because they are so big that they don’t really have to take risks on new technology to hit home runs. Wind is a very profitable industry so investors are coming from all over.

  • James Wimberley

    The last paragraph is more than a puff for the companies involved. One of the factors in tipping points in technology substitution is that you reach a critical mass of people and organizations who are good at doing the new thing, while the pool of people and organizations who are competent at the old thing keeps shrinking. The world nuclear industry is now more or less down to three reactor design teams, Areva, Hitachi and Toshiba; ABB and Siemens have quit the business. Outside China, who has recent experience of building a big coal-fired power plant?

    • George Stevens

      Pressurized water reactors will be phased out, but Nuclear as an energy source has much potential beyond this outdated half-century old reactor design. R&D funding is occurring and efforts will accelerate as FF supplies get closer to exhaustion.

      Non-fissile waste material can be bred into fissile material and the end result is a fraction of the original amount of low-level radiation waste. This is a fact. The catch is whether this chain of events can be economically controlled on a large scale. Obviously this deserves an exceptional amount of public funding, but unfortunately the public is quite unaware, and wrongfully opposed to anything with ‘nuclear’ in the name.

      • Bob_Wallace

        Pure speculation, George.

        You are assuming that the research we are now doing will produce safer and cheaper nuclear industry. Research outcomes are never guaranteed. You’re wish-casting.

        Fuel waste is only a tiny part of the radio active waste created by nuclear energy. And we obviously don’t have a solution for even fuel waste, otherwise France would not be encasing theirs in glass but using it.

        • George Stevens

          Actually Bob I think the way I stated it was pretty dead on, feel free to reread and then apologize for calling me speculative.

          Non-fissile material can be bred into fissile material with the introduction of a small amount of fissile material. That has been proven in the laboratory.

          I used this qualifier:

          “The catch is whether this chain of events can be economically controlled on a large scale”

          Saying that we can for sure harness that potential in a practical reactor would be speculative. I am simply saying that it should be very high on the priority list for any clean energy R&D.

          There is a danger in being so abruptly negative toward nuclear power, and that danger is that man-kind misses out on the potential it has to serve our needs. There is already enough misleading propaganda out about its safety record, we don’t need a bloggers from clean-technica squashing it at every opportunity as well. It absolutely needs to be thoroughly researched and public knowledge and support should grow.

          • Bob_Wallace

            George, once more and probably for the last time – what is dreamed of and what works in the laboratory is not something that exists in the real world.

            We’ve had multiple nuclear “great ideas”, such as pebble bed reactors, which looked great on the drawing board and showed promise in the lab but failed in the real world.

            Right now we do not have affordable nuclear energy. Right now the company which the UK wants to build some new reactors is insisting on a guaranteed price of $0.15/kWh for all the electricity they produce for the next 20 years. The UK is offering $0.12/kwh and the builders will not accept that deal.

            Fifteen cents when we are already generating electricity with wind for five cents, solar for less than ten, and storing electricity for under five.

            Do the math, George. It’s really simple.

            If you want to live in a fantasy world in which dreaming something up makes it real, that’s your decision. (Take that too far and you’ll get a mental health diagnosis.)

            And learn something about how often we have nuclear ‘near misses’. And the vast amount of non-fuel radioactive hazardous waste we have already.

            Enough of this, George. I grew up on a farm. I know that arguing with a mule gets one nowhere.

            You are knowledge deficient. Your opinions fail because you lack adequate knowledge on which to form useful opinions.

          • George Stevens

            So nuclear is expensive now…..therefore we shouldn’t consider funding and developing different reactor designs even though they have huge scientifically demonstrated potential????

            If your logic applied to solar it would have never gotten to the point it has today. Photovoltaic cell design has gained efficiencies and dropped costs in leaps and bounds because what was dreamed of in the laboratory was funded and brought to the real world.

            Advancements in the understanding in physics and material science of solar cells made it clear that they had the potential for practical real-world application if additional research and development were provided. Now we have the very same thing happening for nuclear energy. Computer modeling that wasn’t possible in the past has allowed scientists to accurately project the specifics of the breeding reactions. These models make it clear that this next gen breeding technology is something that should be heavily funded. There is a huge difference between solar and nuclear though. Because of the Shockley- Quessier limit we know that making PV cheap (in comparison to current NG rates) will be very difficult if not impossible. We also know that because of land constraints, raw material constraints, and intermittency, it will play a limited role in our energy future. Next generation nuclear on the other hand could be very very cheap and completely scalable.

            The only problem is that we have a bunch of people like you that don’t know what they are talking about spreading lies and talking in a generally negative light about anything related to nuclear. You say you have studied nuclear carefully, well Im telling you you haven’t. Read about IFRs read about the TWR, you will learn a lot.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Sixty plus years of investing billions of dollars in nuclear energy has not resulted in nuclear energy becoming cheaper. Nuclear energy continues to increase in price.

            Thirty years of investing relatively smaller amounts in wind and solar has reduced the cost of electricity from wind by 6x and the cost of solar panels almost 200x.

            You know these things, George. You’re just trolling.

          • George Stevens

            Relatively smaller amounts? I think that is highly debatable, China invested over 34 billion in the solar pv industry in just 3 years time…

            Nuclear energy actually produced cost effective energy for decades. Recently construction of plants with outdated reactor technology has gotten prohibitively expensive, but that is no reason to abandon it all together, especially when new science tells us that nuclear has immense unrealized potential by virtue of new reactor design.

          • Bob_Wallace

            You were talking about investing in nuclear.

            Now you’re trying to use expenditures on renewable installation to confuse the issue.

            ” new science tells us that nuclear has immense unrealized potential by virtue of new reactor design”

            New science does not tell us that. Nuclear fan-boys tell us that.

            Bad troll.

          • George Stevens

            No there is actually a lot of substantiated research on IFR and other breeder reactor designs that demonstrates how these designs have far more potential than pressurized water reactors.

            As always reaching that potential is another thing altogether but it certainly merits some support.

            Let’s try to be a little more respectful Bob. Calling me names just because I want clean energy isn’t very fitting of a moderator.

          • Bob_Wallace

            No one has built one.

            We do not know the price.

            We can’t consider something that does not exist.

            “Bad troll” is a description of your behavior.

          • George Stevens

            So we can’t discuss new battery storage technologies or a smart grid either then?

            Or air-borne wind-turbines or vapor deposition of crystalline silicon in pv modules, or flywheels for residential use or space based solar power or 20 MW wind turbines or long range EVs or cellulosic biofuels or economical fuel cells…..

            IFRs actually have been built, one was run for several decades in the US and showed a lot of promise. The Clinton administration killed the program before the reactor design could go through the necessary regulatory process and see the light of day. The reasons for canceling the program were entirely political and had nothing to do with the feasibility of the technology. It would have been similar to the situation in which Romney would have ended the wind PTC had he been elected. Please look it up for yourself.

            Calling me a bad troll for constructive dialogue about clean energy technology on a clean energy website is entirely unfitting for a moderator. It is also a lame insult.

Back to Top ↑