European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan

by rdf
Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 04:12:06 PM EST

Since all I've done is comment on what not to do I think it is only fair I toss in a zero-th level draft for people to examine.

It is deliberately brief and weak on details, since one of my remarks was on audience in a sound-bite world.

The operational parts would be expanded in a series of appendices once the main points were in place.

Have at it:

A Sustainable Energy Policy

The objectives:

To replace fossil fuels with non-depleting energy sources in generating electric power.
To replace liquid fuels from petroleum with alternatives.
To reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions to as low a level as possible as quickly as possible.

The plan:

All electric power will come from solar, wind, tide or biomass within 25 years. During the transition nuclear power will be substituted for coal, oil and natural gas to the extent that the new sources are unable to ramp up quickly enough. The nuclear plants built for transitional use will be allowed to stay operational until they reach normal end of life or for 35 years whichever comes first.
People displaced from coal, oil and gas extraction and refining industries in the affected region will be given job retraining to work in the replacement sectors. Those not able to transition to other employment will be be provided with lifetime income replacement assistance. Private owners of discontinued natural resource firms will be bought out by a new state owned corporation set up for this purpose. The funds for this will be obtained by means of a new fuel use transition tax that will be added to all conventional fossil fuel purchases. Once the buyout is complete and the raw materials are no longer used for fuel (chemical feed stocks will still be permitted) the tax will be eliminated.
To enable the new power sources to supply all needed electric power, there will be an immediate transition to high efficiency electric usage. This means that incandescent lamps will be replaced by alternative high efficiency substitutes, outdoor signage will be restricted in electricity consumption, buildings will not be permitted to be illuminated (except for safety) when empty. All night time road illumination must be replaced with directed fixtures which focus only on the desired area. Similar restrictions will be put in place with regard to home appliances and other items. A usage allowance will be set for each dwelling. Exceeding the allowance will make the excess consumption subject to a progressive tax. The goal is to have renewable power generation ramp up at the same time that total consumption is declining.
A new liquid fuel tax structure will be put in place that increases every year. The objective is to persuade consumers to prefer more efficient vehicles. The way manufactures respond will be left to the market to decide. Policies to discourage single occupancy vehicle use can also be put in place. These can range from travel restrictions like HOV lanes to prohibiting such vehicles from entering inner cities. The government will set up a NASA-like research group to design alternatives to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles. This will be funded by the new liquid fuel tax. Any useful developments will be licensed on a non-exclusive basis to any firm wishing to make use of the technology. The fees go back to the R&D corporation.
There will be no direct efforts to lower carbon emissions, rather the taxes and market pressure will, it is hoped, be enough to inspire conservation and substitution measures. Since the goal is regional self-sufficiency there is no need for cumbersome international mechanisms like carbon trading or national quotas. Countries that do not comply outside the region will find themselves competing for a declining store of raw materials which will drive up their costs and make them uncompetitive. This alone should be enough to insure progress, although it may take longer.
It is expected that none of these plans will do enough, fast enough, to prevent some climate change, especially in sensitive regions like the Netherlands. The issues of how to ameliorate these effects need to be dealt with separately.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan | 73 comments (73 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

It is good to see something on 'paper'.

This plan alone would involve a lot of data collection and analysis.

I still very much like Colman's visual map for those of us trying to grasp how everything might fit together. But how to use it?

And I repeat my earlier comment that there are several audiences, including policy-makers, administrations, NGOs, corporations and individuals. I believe we will need several documents each mining the data in different ways.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 04:29:35 PM EST

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Talk about radical!

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 05:08:11 PM EST

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

It would be good to feed this into/merge it with Colman's starting point. Here come the ideas. How to collate them, build up a simple light structure to move ahead? I sorta like Sven's idea of using the Debates function... Any ideas?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 05:21:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

At the very least there could be separate Debates in the topics that RDF lists. Though this may put things in boxes and lose cross connections, it might be better while using this tool (Scoop), because the amount of data might just be unmanageable.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 06:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

common sense always seems radical to (fossil) fools!

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 11:18:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 1)

Who are you calling a fool, fossil?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 06:16:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Is this a joke I don't get or did you misread melo as is s/he talked about you?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 06:34:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

It is a joke.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 06:39:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

whom are you calling a fossil, fool?

to dodo; mig never needs to tag 'snark' to me.

he's teaching me e-fencing!

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Nov 24th, 2006 at 06:52:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

whom are you calling a fossil, fool?

Exactly! LOL

Having dropped my fencing practice, all I have left is e-fencing.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 24th, 2006 at 06:53:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 1)

OT: expect an answer to your cottage LLP question soon...

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 24th, 2006 at 06:54:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

i tried to email you to give you my addy, but no luck...what do i have to drop to make it work?

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Nov 24th, 2006 at 01:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

It's definitely daring.

I don't think that you can come to people with a proposal of eliminating all fossil-fuel usage in 25 years at this time. It might be a possibility, might not even require the draconian measures you propose. But I don't know if it's good to put a number up front as a requirement.

The Energize America 2020 plan says that the measures will 'enable' the U.S. to reduce both oil imports and GHG emissions by 50%. This is better already.

Most of your recommendations require a level of state intervention that people will not tolerate. They would be politically inviable, especially if they came from the European Union.

Not that they could, because some fall outside the scope of what the EU is allowed to legislate on (like forbidding buildings to be illuminated at night) or under unanimity rules (taxation), or require a radical increase in its budget (a NASA like research group).

This brings up another question. What are we going to focus on? The EU, or each of the national governments?

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 07:45:37 PM EST

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

I also think the explicit time frames should be eliminated initially. Are they even feasible?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 02:27:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Time frames are the way the EU drafts its strategies (say x% renewables by year y). Usually, they fail because action is postponed towards the end of the time frame due to politician's time preference. This is one bad characteristic of a time frame. Another problem is that if developments go more quickly than the strategy presumes, it fails to capitalise on this because the goal is already met. IMO the ideal is an action-driven plan which is flexible, but also with hard requirements, but carved up, in many short deadlines.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 05:55:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

How about an insane transport plan?

Promote the definitions of congestion zones with automobile entrance taxes. (Large city centres first.) All proceeds to improved public transport for congestion zone and surrounding areas, with a look to expanding such zones as public infrastructure improves. Incentives in the form of EU funds.
Computerised tracking of surface traffic in dense areas, (taxis, busses and goods transport, and whatever cars remain) for the purpose of optimising traffic flow. Vehicles not on a fixed route (non-buses) must enter destination before takeoff and will be directed there to optimise traffic flow. Computerised point to point transport service (taxis) to enable multiple unrelated passengers to benefit from the same fuel expenditure.)
(Kill the car!!)

Taxation of airplane fuel, set to rise at some pre-specified rate. All proceeds for this to development of a European high speed train network, the physical infrastructure (rail) to be owned by the EU, and use rights leased to operators. Some fun dynamic computation for train car allocation on rail lines to avoid running half empty trains.
(Kill the plane!!)

(I don't actually know how much efficiency improvements we could expect with crazy computational transport systems. But the idea appeals to me.)

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 06:08:14 AM EST

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Taxation of airplane fuel, set to rise at some pre-specified rate. All proceeds for this to development of a European high speed train network

While high-speed rail indeed primarily competes with air travel, what should definitely change is a primary focus of funds on high-speed rail. Local traffic, including not just urban commuter but countryside, should get equal support (though that best from road tax).

, the physical infrastructure (rail) to be owned by the EU, and use rights leased to operators.

This is now the vision held by decisionmakers and the 'common wisdom' in the media, but I disagree with it. I am for integrated railways, meaning infrastructure and rolling stock in the same company. Rail traffic is highly complicated and interconnected. The design, operation and maintenance of infrastructure influences the design, operation and maintenance of trains and vice versa. Separation produces nothing but loss of coordination and externalities. See Britain.

Some fun dynamic computation for train car allocation on rail lines to avoid running half empty trains.

This is not possible with high-speed trains, which are fixed consists (electric multiple units). Trains will also be necessarily half-empty on at least part of their journey if they have more than two stations, due to different passenger flux over different relations. It is also the case that sometimes allowing for half-empty trains can be an overall benefit. The recent spread of even-headway timetables is evidence for that: the convenience of trains leaving at the same minute of an hour attract new passengers, which is worth it even if say the passengers of the day's last three trains would fit on a single rail bus.

However, improving train car allocation on locomotive-pulled trains, or flexibly choosing from different-length EMUs, is still something desirable, less for reasons of over-capacity than the opposite: to not annoy passengers with overcrowded trains.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 06:27:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

objective 1. To replace fossil fuels with non-depleting energy sources in generating electric power.
plan 1. All electric power will come from solar, wind, tide or biomass within 25 years. During the transition nuclear power will be substituted for coal, oil and natural gas to the extent that the new sources are unable to ramp up quickly enough. The nuclear plants built for transitional use will be allowed to stay operational until they reach normal end of life or for 35 years whichever comes first.

What geothermal potential does the EU have? Is electricity generation the best use of geothermal energy where it is available, or is water heating a more practical use of it? If geothermal sources are far from population centres, electricity generation might be the proper thing to do.

Also, what about Hydroelectric power? Is it just me not paying attention, or has the development of hydroelectricpower all but stopped in the EU? Is this because it is too expensive to finance at market rates (costly infrastructure), because all the best locations have already been developed, because of NIMBY, or because of the environmental impact of building large dams? (I'm thinking about the famous examples of Aswan in Egypt or the Three Gorges Dam in China).

Spain has a large number of dams built during Franco's time, mostly justified as water reservoirs against "the pertinacious drought". I wonder whether they are built to their full potential for electricity generation or not. Also, with the ongoing drought in Spain, it is possible that the electricity generation potential is largely reduced.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 06:24:03 AM EST

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 1)

What geothermal potential does the EU have?

Wet: limited. Dry-rock: much more than it could use. (Check my older diary. I might do an update before the end of the year.) The main problems at present are that technology is in pilot stage and expensive.

Is electricity generation the best use of geothermal energy where it is available, or is water heating a more practical use of it?

It's not either-or. You could run it in dual mode. But certainly the supply of heating needs is its primary advantage.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 06:45:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Can I check some numbers? (DoDo or anyone else who knows.)

1) The annual output of a small geothermal plant = 50mw?

(Plus they can sequester CO2-->1m tonnes)

Is that correct?

2) The annual output of an average (=600kw) wind turbine has a range depending on windspeed of 500mw (=0.5GW) at windspeed 4.5m/s to 2,700mw (2.7Gw) at windspeed 10m/s

So one turbine running at low speed = 10 small geothermal plants?

Geographical area of Europe = 9,938,000km squared. If I assume 1/3 of that is completely inaccesible for a single turbine, would I be about right, or (wildly) over- or under-estimating?
Question: How closely can one space small geothermal plants? 100km apart? More? Less? Also, how much of Europe's mass is useful to geothermal technology (present or about to come on line)?

I would like to do the following calculation:

Total annual output for wind turbines spaced at X distance apart across useable landmass in Europe (distributed network of stand-alone turbines; not windfarms)

Plus

Total annual output for geothermal plants spaced at Y distance apart across useable landmass in Europe(measured as electricity; I'm assuming that if the energy is used to directly heat buildings this will end up as a gain for the electricity network--less electricity would be used for heating)

= ?

I would like to compare this number to current energy use of Europe (Europe considered as all countries in geographical area described here.)

For the energy use of Europe, Jerome quoted an annual figure for France in the diary you linked to (thanks for that), so if anyone could point me to a list of figures I can add up Europe's use. Or if anyone can supply the number...any of the numbers...perhaps this is a mad fool's list of statements and questions...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 07:49:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

I was googling for a map of geothermal potential in Europe, and guess what? The European Commission had it...

European Commission (DG Research): Key advantages of Enhanced Geothermal Systems

Conventional geothermal applications, except for geothermal heat pumps, rely on the geological coincidence of water-bearing, hot permeable rocks occurring at economically accessible depths. This is a comparatively uncommon situation, and constrains the usable resource because it is site-specific and distributed unevenly among countries. The Hot Dry Rock (HDR) / Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) concept aims to utilise the vast amount of heat stored in the Earth's crust which is not accessible by conventional geothermal technology. Hot Dry Rock comprises a huge amount of useful heat stored in rocks that are technically accessible but lack the natural permeability necessary for heat extraction. Moreover, such heat stores are much more widely distributed and so offer a geothermal potential to many countries where conventional resources are absent. Even in those areas where good conventional geothermal resources exist, there is usually a much greater volume of heated rock than can be exploited with current techniques. The importance of this `potential' resource can be judged by noting that cooling one cubic kilometre of rock (which is about the scale of a geothermal reservoir) by 1°C will provide the energy equivalent of 70 000 tonnes of coal.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 08:03:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Thanks for that.

A third of Europe's landmass is therefore available? (very -ish?)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 08:13:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (4.00 / 2)

Now we know why we need Turkey in the EU: it's a priority area for geothermal power!

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 08:19:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

What happen every time a quake breaks the injection pipes ?

Pierre

by Pierre on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 09:39:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

You'd probably want to combine the geothermal potential map with a map of seismic activity to identify good sites.

How often is a surface gas or oil pipeline broken by an earthquake, by the way?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 09:49:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 1)

Most pipelines were probably broken by the izmit quake. But they're on the surface, only a few parallel lines, broken in a few places, where you fix. A geothermal pipe running vertically and broken in just one place is dead: you have to drill another one next to it, 5 kliks deep, and possibly trigger explosives down below to fracture the rocks and let the water flow... Much longer. Better stick with Auvergne: this is the boom land of the future.

Pierre

by Pierre on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 10:04:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

From what I read, deep bores are actually less likely to break, unless they run directly across a fault line. In Germany, projecters aim right for the most earthquake-prone regions.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 10:31:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Might have something to do with the difference between pressure and shear waves.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 10:35:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (4.00 / 2)

Geothermal power plants can run continuously, e.g. with a capacity factor near 1. Hence, multiply power by the number of hours a year, e.g. say 10 MW x 24 x 365 87,600 MWh 0.0876 TWh.
Today an average new wind turbine is more like 2 MW nominal power. You confuse power (measured by MW) with produced energy (measured by kWh) in the link you used. For average power of a turbine on a 'typical' location on land, best use the conservative capacity factor 0.25, e.g. for a 2 MW turbine an average power of 0.5 MW, and thus an annual energy production of 0.00438 TWh.
You would be wildly over-estimating. I'd put it at maybe a quarter of the total land area, with good wind locations heavily concentrated at the Atlantic shore.
Surely you meant 100 meters? I don't know, but I think one kilometre is more like it. As for useful area, that depends on how much you are ready to pay: below a certain level, the Earth is hot enough everywhere...

distributed network of stand-alone turbines; not windfarms

Why does that matter? Stand-alone turbines still have to be connected to a grid, I see no practical difference between densely-spaced standalones and neighbouring wind farms. And compared to coal-fired, gas-fired and nuclear plants, wind farms are distributed power.

measured as electricity; I'm assuming that if the energy is used to directly heat buildings this will end up as a gain for the electricity network--less electricity would be used for heating

Actually, for heating, the use of rest energy can be enough -- doubleplusgood. There is such a plant in operation in Germany.

Digging in my memory, there was a study that the EU could just barely supply its electricity needs from available wind power (with the bulk of it coming from the Atlantic shore), while as can be seen from my Germany claim in the linked diary, the potential of geothermal is magnitudes bigger but much further from being tapped.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 08:57:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (4.00 / 2)

I don't know why AutoFormat swallowed the equation signs, but here is an attempt to do it without:

1) Geothermal power plants can run continuously, e.g. with a capacity factor near 1. Hence, multiply power by the number of hours a year, e.g. say 10 MW x 24 x 365 = 87,600 MWh = 0.0876 TWh.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 09:00:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Thanks a lot, DoDo.

Stand-alone turbines still have to be connected to a grid, I see no practical difference between densely-spaced standalones and neighbouring wind farms

One of my thoughts is about access. A stand-alone serves a specific local community, whereas a wind farm is distant and serves many. For me the practical issue is around access to the local generation source and maintenance... I'm thinking a local community could have the services to maintain it's local cache (at 1 turbine every 4 km squared, it should be only one or two.) I know this doesn't take into account our current population densities: no one in certain parts of the country vs. heavily over-populated cities. I'm trying to build a picture in my head of what the possibilities are, power wise, for local communities having free energy (=heat/transport/light industry.) Think of transplanting the model to an African country, but their renewables are differently weighted (to solar.)

Another reason for distributing the energy is land use (this is, again, an idea in progress.) A windfarm is cloggy...it needs its roads, its out-buildings, etc... A stand-alone needs less. And yes, overall, there would be more infastructure, but at more local scales.

(Also, individual turbines reduce the NIMBY factor, and give a sense of local ownership.)

Well, I have more ideas floating in my head about that (field railways!) but for now, thanks again!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 09:46:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

A stand-alone serves a specific local community, whereas a wind farm is distant and serves many.

This is again not a useful distinction. In the sense of being off-grid, a wind farm can be stand-alone, too -- you size the wind farm according to needs. (Islands belonging to Australia have such.) On-grid wind farms usually also primarily serve the closest community(/ies). Meanwhile, intermittance means that most of the power of off-grid systems is wasted, while the surplus of on-grid wind farms can be conducted to far-away places. (For intermittant sources, if you hear the efficiency argument with transmission loss, you should smell fish.) Furthermore, most of Europe's energy needs are concentrated in cities, thus you definitely need transmission from elsewhere. And it doesn't make sense to 'isolate' this problem.

I'm thinking a local community could have the services to maintain it's local cache

For a small village, even one turbine is too much. Why could villages and farmers not export surplus to the cities?

A windfarm is cloggy...it needs its roads, its out-buildings, etc... A stand-alone needs less.

How so? One standalone needs less than a dozen in one wind farm, but if you compare the equal number of widely-spaced standalone vs. connected-in-a-wind-farm turbines, obviously the latter needs less, as it is in a smaller space.

but at more local scales.

In what sense would it be more local?

individual turbines reduce the NIMBY factor

Not necessarily. If a wind farm has local ownership, that also works. The NIMBY factor is over-rated anyway, as told several times on ET.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 10:16:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

I'm not imagining stand-alones as being off-grid. I'm imagining a europe-wide grid where the distance between one turbine and the next is @ 4km north/south/east/west. I'm a novice at the numbers, but I believe electricity can be moved 1500km or so along a network. Whereas windfarms clump together where the wind is strongest, I imagine there are very few wind-free areas in Europe, and on any particular day, where the wind bloweth not, elsewhere it bloweth.

But maybe having just the one turbine is overdoing it, so maybe small groupings could also work. By local, I mean "can be maintained by the local community" rather than "needs to be maintained by a central agency." But this goes against the networking aspect, unless I said the local community owned the turbine (as an LLP ;) and then connected to a national/international grid. So local, independent, free (apart from build and then maintenance costs...but costs is another discussion...)

So for now, assuming small groups of--or individual--wind turbines spread more or less equidistantly across across 2484500 sq km (25% european landmass) = how much power?

Re: 100km. I assumed that geothermal plants would need to be far from each other. Given your numbers for geothermal, and I'll call geothermal a rewewable in the way that solar is renewable (won't be running out in a thousand or more lifetimes? Is that true for deep-hole geothermal?)...Europe already has the technology to provide every european citizen with FREE energy for life, once the initial manufacturing costs are dealt with (which would be my next series of questions: how much metal etc. would be needed to construct 621125 wind turbines, and is this available as scrap. Could we scrap cars and recycle? Are there new materials arriving? What are they made from...how big do the factories need to be? I'm imagining (in my wild fancy) a Europe completely beyond the I MUST BUY THINGS logic. First, build what's necessary to have free power. Feed everyone in the meantime. (A five year plan kinda thing, but with a modern luxury lifestyle basis...massive govt. investment via a Keynsian model, but this time in turbines and geothermal plants rather than shipyards...but the raw materials...where are they?)

I also agree that a windfarm needs overall less infastructure (economies of scale), but the stand-alone infastructure (roads etc.) would have dual use...etc... The difference between a huge drinking establishment in the centre of town and lots of local pubs...sommat like that. Yes, there are more chairs and tables, but the overall impact is diluted, spread wider, so less invasive to all.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 11:25:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Do you have any idea how many kilometres of road/railway you're talking about here? (and not on flat terrain either)

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 11:27:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

We've had this conversation before. There is the question of original placement. I dunno. Helicopters? There must be a solution. How did they build those ski lifts up in the mountains? Then there is the question of sheer amount. There was a discussion of field railways (take 'em away when you've finished), and there is already a huge network of tarmac to be starting with. So how far would each turbine have to travel from a main road, on average. And how often would the structure have to travel that distance? But yes, I am envisaging an entire revolution in Europe's way of life, including where we live, how we travel, etc. It happened after WWII, it happened at the onset of the industrial revolution. But this time we can get FREE power! No toxic residues. And we have the latest farming know how to creat abundance in many many localities. We have the latest materials. Etc... Not that I expect it to happen, but I'd like to map it out and see what technical reasons there would be for failure. So far I haven't read any, but I don't have the numbers and, as demonstrated above, I can mangle them to beggary without realising it, hence my request for help.

So, distributed wind + distributed geothermal. How much energy do we get? Is it enough to live as we do (minus smoggy cars and plus these excellent new light-reflecting materials I read about here yesterday)?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 12:09:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

I'll add that it is precisely the difficulty that appeals. There are far too many adults in Europe who have nothing to do, nothing useful, nothing that engages their muscles and their minds. Office jobs? Forget it. And so...why not get them out there, building a future for us, them, and ze kids? A task to be proud of! If it involves loads of "extra" work, I think "extra" needs to be quantified against something. Pay the unemployed a thousand pounds a week to drag the beggars the 5 necessary kms, then give them free electricity from that turbine for the rest of their lives. I'd do it! I'd become unemployed to help out! A thousand quid a week plus a lifetime's free energy. Cool!

Etc...

Time to go.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 12:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Distributed geothermal...

What is the smallest size of a community that would have the ability (and capital) to drill a 1Km (let alone 5Km) deep hole in the ground and line it with pipes, and build a power plant on top? And remember if you screw up the drilling you may end up with a mud volcano in your hands... Just a wild guess? 100k people?

Something tells me while these ideas are technically feasible they are "big technology" and not really "distributed" or "distributable". You need big industrial capacity just to procure the machinery needed for this kind of project, and to design it, and build it.

DoDo estimates that 3500 geothermal power plants (with 3km-deep bores) at 10MW each would be enough to supply Germany's electricity baseload. We're talking one plant for every 23k people, or one every 100Km^2 (i.e. about 10km apart). I sincerely doubt 25k people can raise the capital to get one of these things built. However, using Chris Cook's fast breeder renewables finance mechanism it might be possible for a larger community to gradually build up to the required power. Maybe it can be accomplished in 25 years, I don't know.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 02:07:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Just a wild guess? 100k people?

Much less.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 03:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 1)

I sincerely doubt 25k people can raise the capital to get one of these things built.

Well, I gave the numbers. At current prices, that would be €3,000 per person. 25 years seems a reasonable timespan (during which the price could go down too).

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 03:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Something tells me while these ideas are technically feasible they are "big technology" and not really "distributed" or "distributable".

Well, everything is relative. The current first deep geothermal plants are in the megawatt range. Exactly like wind turbines. If you accept only locally manufactured and say one generator per family/farm/hamlet as distributed power, then today distributed power doesn't exist.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 03:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

That is one point I was trying to make to Nomad in an earlier discussion: a large wind turbine blade is essentially a modified aircraft wing. That's not something you can manufacture locally.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 04:01:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not quite (none / 1)

It's the same size, and it has a similar shape, but it's a lot simpler to manufacture, because it's essentially one big piece of carbon fiber. No fins, no reservoirs, no engines to carry, etc...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 04:07:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite (4.00 / 2)

But you need a large facility where you have to cast it, and in a sufficient quality to withstand both mechanical stress and weather.

As for photovoltaic, you need a semiconductor industry.

Indeed whatever you build, you need a semiconductor industry for the inverters.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 04:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 1)

maybe having just the one turbine is overdoing it, so maybe small groupings could also work

You can place turbines in a wind farm any way and any distance you want. This distinction of yours still mistifies me.

By local, I mean "can be maintained by the local community" rather than "needs to be maintained by a central agency."

Any wind farm except off-shore can be maintained by a local community, its maintenance needs are minimal. It is not done by central agencies, except when it is done as service by the factory itself.

across 2484500 sq km (25% european landmass) = how much power?

With your 4-km-spacing figure, I get 155,000 turbines, if they are 2 MW then 310,000 MW altogether. If there is no concentration in good wind regions, let's go with a capacity factor of 0.17, we get 460 TWh. That's somewhat less than the total German consumption, and less than a sixth of EU-25 consumption.

won't be running out in a thousand or more lifetimes? Is that true for deep-hole geothermal?

If you tap natural hot water, depletion will be a problem on a shorter scale (say decades or centuries). If you solve the water depletion problem by re-injecting water into deep reservoirs, you must find an equilibrum level of heat transport, e.g. don't withdraw more than what heat comes from down below. The latter constraint also holds for dry-rock technology. If you observe that, indeed it will reduce only as radioactive isotopes decay in the deeper regions of Earth and their heat has been transported outward.

FREE energy for life, once the initial manufacturing costs are dealt with

Beware of free energy, it leads to irresponsibility and jump in demand. It happened before, it happened elsewhere (Brazil: free hydro-energy led to wastefully leaving everything on which led to blackouts). But it wouldn't be free, especially if you construct on credit, but also because of maintenance (the turbines have moving parts and pipes that suffer wear just like in gas-fired power plants).

how much metal etc

I'd imagine the limiting factor would not be the main constituents, but the rare metals and/or semiconductors needed in the electric part of the generators.

As for steel, I looked up one 2MW unit, with an 85m tower, its house (which contains the generator) weights 80 tons, the tower (steel) 230 tons, the basement (concrete) 850 tons. A tower could also be concrete, and I don't know how much metal is in concrete, but let's go with 400 tons of steel per turbine. So if I didn't miscalculate, the total need according to your plan is 250 million tons. For 2006, the total EU production is expected to rise to 200 million tons (China's will be 550 million tons).

the stand-alone infastructure (roads etc.) would have dual use

Why not that of wind farms? Usually wind farm access roads are farm roads. I simply do not understand the whole argument about farms vs 'independent' turbines.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 04:48:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 1)

let's go with 400 tons of steel per turbine. So if I didn't miscalculate, the total need according to your plan is 250 million tons.

Here I calculated with your 621,125 turbines, but I just noticed you forgot to square four kilometres. But if you go with a 2 km distance, the above figure remains, but total wind production rises to 2/3rd of the EU demand.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 04:56:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

The key problem seems to be the rare metals. They must have super-conductivity properties. These are the metals they're digging out of the hills in the DRC... They're also finite, so maybe a european electrical energy indepence project would be at the expense (in materials) of everywhere else? R. Buckminster Fuller had this all worked out. He stated that we could generate enough energy and transmit it effectively by using 1967 technologies, and technology has leapt ahead since then. He also stated that we have the materials already available, we only need to effectively move about what we've already dug up. Not sure how that works with rare metals, but someone here talked about the energy involved in recycling mobile phones. Once our energy source is a bona-fide renewable, this issue disappears. The energy is free (+ maintenance), so "how much do we need?" means only "Can we generate enough?"

Or sommat.

Back to my original numbers. Wind turbines across 25% of Europe with an average density of one every 2km (or 2 every 4, 4 every 8 etc..) could generate two thirds of current european electricity demand? Have I got that right?

Add geothermal for the other third...but if geothermal is as productive as you say, then we could flip those numbers around and say one turbine every 4km and the rest from geothermal, and then we can factor in solar (esp. for heating) in the south?

(OT but interesting: ASDA--our national cheapo supermarket chain--is now selling solar panels at @ £240 each (well, so I've been told). I don't know if the panels efficient, etc., but it shows demand is there.)

Re: Migeru's point about communities having access to the ability and the cash, I'm assuming that the first wave of geothermal will be run out by govts. or similar sized entities (a diversification for the kinds of money that currently builds coal/nuclear) using keynsian/new deal economic models.

So....

Europe could, if it wanted, generate free (apart from maintenance costs) and non-toxic electrical energy to match its current demand. So any "we must do nuclear now" arguments are about real-politik and not technical limitations?

Re: overuse of free energy, I think this is an education issue and should be dealt with through educating a new generation--as well as educating the current generations, of course.

But those rare metals. Is any progress being made on non-metal matierals? (Not sure what would be the best alternative source--some derivative of sand? Silicon? On materials I know even less than my usual nossink.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 06:05:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 1)

The key problem seems to be the rare metals. They must have super-conductivity properties.

Huh?

Tantalum is used primarily for the production of capacitors, which are vital components in electronic devices, ranging widely from mobile phones to laptop computers. The upsurge in tech products over the past decade has resulted in extraordinary demands and price increases for the mineral [4]. These price increases have contributed to tension in the producing countries, particularly between Congo and Rwanda.

Coltan seems to be valuable because of Tantalum's high performance at rather mundane tasks, nothing sexy like superconductivity, in fact it is the exact opposite of superconductivity that's its main use in electronics

The major use for tantalum, as the metal powder, is in the production of electronic components, mainly capacitors and some high-end audio grade resistors. Tantalum electrolytic capacitors exploit the tendency of tantalum to form a protective oxide surface layer, using tantalum foil as one plate of the capacitor, the oxide as the dielectric, and an electrolytic solution as the other plate. Because the dielectric layer can be very thin (thinner than the similar layer in, for instance, an aluminium electrolytic capacitor), a high capacitance can be achieved in a small volume. Because of the size and weight advantages, tantalum capacitors are attractive for portable telephones, pagers, personal computers, and automotive electronics.
Tantalum is also used to produce a variety of alloys that have high melting points, are strong and have good ductility. Alloyed with other metals, it is also used in making carbide tools for metalworking equipment and in the production of superalloys for jet engine components, chemical process equipment, nuclear reactors, and missile parts. Because of its ductility, Ta can be drawn into fine wires or filaments, which are used for evaporating metals such as aluminium.
Due to the fact that it resists attack by body fluids and is nonirritating, tantalum is widely used in making surgical instruments and implants. The oxide is used to make special high refractive index glass for camera lenses. The metal is also used to make vacuum furnace parts.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 06:16:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

free (apart from maintenance costs) and non-toxic

You are ignoring the cost and toxicity of the manufacturing processes involved. Argue that those are smaller that the alternatives, but don't discount them. Just as Jerome points out that the "advantage" of fossil-fuel-burning plants is that they can push a large fraction of their financial costs to the future through fuel, the same is also true of the environmental costs. So, just like it is harder to finance the costlier infrastructure you have to think about the higher environmental impact of putting the renewable energy plant in place in the first place.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 06:24:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Could we change "are ignoring" to "don't know about"?

;)

I am assuming two stages:

1) Initial set-up. This will be as polluting/toxic as/slightly less polluting/toxic than/remarkably less polluting/toxic than/even more polluting/toxic than current processes.

But once you have set up, where do the toxins come from? Not the energy source.

(re nuclear: my one big issue with nuclear is toxicity [is that the right word? Toxic as in bad for our health and/or the health of other lifeforms]...fusion seems better than fission...but again, I know so little! Anyway, I have no problem with nuclear except for the huge potential dangers of fall-out, no matter how vanishingly small the likelihood...it only has to happen the once...but anyways...)

So there is a sub-issue about how to make stage one as environmentally "light" as possible. I'm assuming that each renewable energy source is less-toxic and also gives energy input so reducing toxicity from elsewhere (gas/coal.)

But can I get my numbers confirmed? Wind, plus geo-thermal plus solar = more than enough renewable energy for Europe.

And re: super-conductors. Ah! How little I know! I would be very interested if anyone here knows about (or could point me to sources on) latest materials technology. An example would be those reflecting sheets for low-energy lighting...that's the kind of thing. It seems, from a good news perspective, that companies are springing up with new technologies.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 06:37:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

I don't know about it either, but I'm not ignoring it.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 06:44:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

They must have super-conductivity properties.

No they don't have to. They have to have good conducting properties, or be the right 'pollution' in semiconductors, or be the structural integrity-giving element in a special alloy.

The energy is free (+ maintenance), so "how much do we need?" means only "Can we generate enough?"

The stuff in parantheses already means that energy is not free, and "can we generate enough" is an even costier question. You should forget the free lunch.

could generate two thirds of current european electricity demand? Have I got that right?

Not exactly. You calculated with Europe's surface area, not the EU's; though the bulk of even medium-quality wind areas are in the EU. You haven't considered off-limits areas like cities, natural parks and bird routes. So I'd say one-sixth is more realistic. On the other hand, if you would allow for denser siting on coastal areas, here is another ad-hoc calculation:

say 35,000 km² of coastal areas (say a length of 3,500 km to a depth of 10 km) are fitted with 5 MW turbines sited at 1-kilometre distances, and work with a capacity factor of 0.3: gives another 460 TWh per year.
say a further 20,000 km² off-shore in shallow sea (say 1000 km by 20 km) is fitted with 6.6 MW turbines sited at 1-kilometre distances, and work with a capacity factor of 0.4: gives yet another 460 TWh per year.

Note BTW: the USA has much more wind potential than the EU, I earlier made a calculation showing that it could easily get to 100% on available land.

say one turbine every 4km and the rest from geothermal, and then we can factor in solar (esp. for heating) in the south?

Well that comes pretty close to my own long-term vision, though the cost and sustainable production of both solar electricity generation and geothermal must improve a lot. (Note: heat, be it from solar-thermal or geothermal, is an entirely different calculation from electricity.)

I'm assuming that the first wave of geothermal will be run out by govts. or similar sized entities

The first wave of German geothermal plants are run by villages, university campuses and small energy firms, the first of whom got some subsidies, but most of whom aim to earn money from Germany's feed-in law (which forces grid owners to buy different kinds of renewable electricity at fixed prices).

Re: overuse of free energy, I think this is an education issue

You smoke. That's an education issue, too :-) I don't believe education can fully deal with irresponsibility.

rare metals

When rare metals are needed in electronic components, they are hardly replaceable by non-metals. But I don't know what exactly is in generator electronics, so I won't comment further.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 07:12:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

The first wave of German geothermal plants are run by villages, university campuses and small energy firms, the first of whom got some subsidies, but most of whom aim to earn money from Germany's feed-in law (which forces grid owners to buy different kinds of renewable electricity at fixed prices).

If only one could get the EU to impose feed-in laws with a directive.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 07:15:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Most European regulatory regimes are ok these days. The biggest hurdles usually are with the permitting process, and the practical aspects of the connection to the grid.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 08:28:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

"Most" means "not all".

Does the UK have feed-in laws?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 08:31:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

To my knowledge, no.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 04:25:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Most European regulatory regimes are ok these days. The biggest hurdles usually are with the permitting process, and the practical aspects of the connection to the grid.

Methinks those hurdles are exactly why regulatory regimes aren't OK.

(For example, I mentioned that I want to install a PV system on my roof next year, I asked around, and were told I have to look forward to a long battle which most people who tried before give up at one stage. Hungary does have a feed-in law, but it is a joke.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 04:27:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Neener neener neener...

Times online: Spain makes solar panels mandatory in new buildings (November 09, 2004)

SPAIN wants to take advantage of its sunshine by making solar panels compulsory in new and renovated buildings -- to save fuel costs and to improve the environment.
Jose Montilla, the Industry Minister, has announced that from next year, anyone who intends to build a home will be obliged to include solar panels in their plans, with the aim of turning Spain from a straggler to a European leader in the use of renewable energy.
With the price of oil rising above $50 a barrel (£27), solar energy could produce savings of at least €80 (£50) a year on fuel to heat domestic water supplies per household, and reduce greenhouse gases, the Government said.

Now seriously, you own your house, now?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 04:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

I think the difference between Jerome's and your perception of the regulatory regimes stems from the fact that he's an energy banker and you're a private citizen.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 07:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 1)

Just a little googling...

EurActiv: Commission accused of attacking aid for green electricity (26 September 2006, updated 21 November 2006)

Environmentalists have pointed the finger at the Commission for telling Luxembourg that the guaranteed price it pays in support of renewable energies is creating market distortions.
...
In a 2001 directive, the EU set itself a target to increase the share of electricity produced from renewable energy to 21% by 2010. However, member states remain free to choose their preferred system to support green electricity. These are mainly:

Feed-in tariffs which oblige grid operators to purchase green electricity at a fixed (higher) price in order to compensate for the difference with the market price, and;

quota systems (or 'green certificates') where governments determine a minimum share of power to be produced from renewable sources.

The Barroso Commission undoing the good work of the Prodi Commission...

Also, a background report...
EurActiv: Renewable Energy in the EU (17 August 2004, updated 21 November 2006)

The EU's Renewables Directive has been in place since 2001, at a time when oil and gas were still at a relatively low price. The directive aims to increase the EU's share of electricity produced from renewable energy sources (RES) to 21% (up from 15.2% in 2001), thus contributing to reach the overall target of 12% of energy consumption from renewables by 2010. Although many member states are struggling to reach their national goals, the European Parliament and environmental groups have now called for even more ambitious targets for 2020.
...
In May 2004, the Commission reported that member states were off track from their national indicative targets. At the current rate, it said only 18 or 19% would be achieved instead of the 22% foreseen in the directive. Only Germany, Denmark, Finland and Spain were set to meet their targets.
...
In a 2005 progress report, the Commission said 'feed-in tariffs' were generally cheaper and more effective than quota systems (EurActiv 8 Dec. 2005). All in all, more than half of EU member states did not give enough support to green electricity, the Commisssion reported. On top of social and financial obstacles, the report pointed at administrative barriers and lack of transparency in grid access as main deterrents. However, it said it still regarded a harmonised European support scheme for renewable electricity as "premature".

I believe the UK is following its preferred approach of setting targets (how I am coming to hate that word) and letting the market do its magic.

Here is the European Commission's "New and Renewable Energies" section (under the Energy unit of the DG Energy and Transport, the one that ran the biofuels consultation)

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 08:44:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

EurActiv: Commission accused of attacking aid for green electricity (26 September 2006, updated 21 November 2006)

I don't get this one. The ECJ has a case (PreussenElektra or Case C-379/98, if you want to look it up) essentially ruling that a feed-in tariff system does not constitute state aid, which means that DG Competition has no competence to approve or disapprove schemes, even if they discriminate against foreign suppliers, because they're not state aid.

P.S. Some of the stuff in this thread has been very good. Compile & Collect.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 07:05:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Re: Super-conductivity: I'll try in future not to propose qualities for materials without knowing whether the materials have said qualities...thanks!--to you and Migeru.

Re: "free": I mean "not metered", or "not steady-stream cash dependent", something like that. The maintenance costs, for there are costs as you say, are...what? Labour and materials. Labour can be paid for through a community tax (like rubbish collection?), or--even better--the communities could employ teams to do this work. Or it could be part of a community's social obligations...the upkeep of their power supply. Money as handy abstract "value in the transaction" thing...(Chris! Jerome!)...is all well and good. But the energy would be free. So as long as the means of production remained out of the hands of rich aggregates (beyond the community level I mean)...and oh, I think that is a whole other discussion, so I take your point and will say I don't have any problem with working for my lunch, but work doesn't have to equal "pay external group X price Y"...ach. Like I said, a whole other discussion...

Re: The US: I sort of expect at least one state to transfer almost wholescale to wind (for the reason you give), and maybe suddenly and in the near future. Nebraska? One of the windy and less-populated ones. That will be a good test case for what might happen next: will some rich entity make even more profit (the energy's free! Now pay up!)? Or will states own the power and feed it out at maintenance cost plus/minus social adjustments... Well, we'll see.

Re: Cost. I was strongly persuaded by Migeru's Keyne's diary that money is a useful fiction (that's badly phrased, Migeru can explain it so much better than I!), so I would like to see cost described as "What things will need to be done?" rather than "How much money?" Once we know what needs doing, how to get those things done is then an open question.

Re: Your Vision: Sign me up, mate!

Re: heat: a whole other topic! I was thinking that I'm also comfortable in non-electric environments--out in nature, in rooms lit by candles, acoustic music--and heat is the primary necessity (at least in the winter round here)...and food, of course...(a whole other aspect!)

Re: education, well yes, I think you're right, I agree with you completely. Some form of compulsion is needed in the short term if you want to change a habits in a single generation.

Re: German geothermal plants, and esp. Migeru's info. about the EU's feed-in issues... Maybe this is the start of a first question to our MEPs?

DoDo! Thanks again for all your help. I've learned a lot.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 09:56:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Re: free. How many times have we heard before "too cheap to meter"? You still have to recover the money you invested into the power generator, essentially by selling the output to the grid. So you bet there's a steady cash stream there. The energy would not be free, it would have the opportunity cost of how much you could sell it for, or you could say it would save you having to buy it at the market price. In any case, installing a renewable energy generator basically means replacing a regular future cash outflow (say £500 per year per household over the next 20 years) with a large capital outlay today (say £10k, and here, to figure out whether you break even, is where the "discout rate" comes in).

Re: cost. On the issue of Keynesianism and "What things will need to be done?" rather than "How much money?", Drew owes me a diary on this website on money reform

Money Reformers advocate that the virtual Monopoly of Money Creation must be removed from the private banking system and we work to establish a publicly-created supply of debt-free money, created on behalf of the people, by a public body. This money should be spent, not lent, into society on the basis of proven need. This will gradually reduce the overall burden of debt in society, break reliance upon the private banking system for the supply of money, open potential for change, and empower people democratically. The Money Reformers' proposal is not a left-wing, or right-wing idea. It's just good sense!

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 10:13:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

You still have to recover the money you invested into the power generator

Why?

If the answer is "because the investors need to make a profit on their investment," I don't see why investors-seeking-profit has to be the only capital source.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 03:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

New Mexico (none / 1)

Here there is a push towards creating a renewable energy production industry by the state goverment. The idea is to shift generation to renewables to supply the state and then continue onwards to produce power for customers out of state.

Near where I live there is a perfect location for a windfarm. The area is approximately 320 kilometers long (both sides of the valley) 100 to 200 meters in width - at the prime locations (guessing, here.) It's all public land, control resting in several different gov't departments, so if permission could be obtained the land cost would be minor.

Wind speed varies from 5 k/hr to 88 k/hr. Average windspeed/day would have to be determined.

Transmission line engineering is beyond my competence so I can only suggest the area would only require one line for each side of the valley, along the ridgetops, feeding into a central collector/transmission station and thence to high power distribution lines. The latter already exist but I do not know if they can handle the load.

Putting it bluntly, the local political authorities would be eager to bring in anything that would spin jobs and money into the local economies. Ranching and Tourism suck as a way to make a living.

NIMBY is a problem as some people 'round here - I'm one of them - get really shirty about industries coming in and ruining the place.

And it appears I've gone into 'pitch mode' so now I shut-up.

No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 12:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Mexico (none / 0)

When you say 'ruining the place', do you mean large wind farms? Would it be the size, the traffic?

(I still like the idea of having turbines spread across a large area in ones (or twos or threes.) Give local communities ownership of their turbine(s), rather than see them as just another industrial complex over the hill.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 04:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ruining New Mexico (none / 1)

NM has a history of people moving in, extracting the natural resources: uranium, copper, gold, timber, and then leaving without paying to clean-up their mess. "Mess" includes killing people from radioactive tailings from uranium and thorium mining.

At the location one side of the valley is completely lost in the distance (30 miles/48 kilometers) from a main road and on the other, more accessible, side the towers could be clustered to hide them and ease maintainence.

No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 05:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (4.00 / 2)

It struck me while travelling through Denmark quite how much a line of turbines resembled a line of pylons.

National Grid always comes out with utterly cosmic costs for burying the power lines (ignoring new and cheaper cabling technology) the reason being they prefer the cheaper option of stringing bloody pylons everywhere (eg the hugely contentious Beauly-Denny line planned here in Scotland to run right through every possible beauty spot).

It would be "self-funding" - using an LLP model, anyway - to bury the cables and write off the cost over maybe 50 years plus, against the revenues generated from the string of turbines (two consecutive 25 year life cycles) you install.

Sure, the turbines would have a lower load factor, but there shouldn't be any planning issue - it just replaces one eyesore with an arguably lesser one and gets rid of the spaghetti......

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 01:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One source of info (4.00 / 2)

http://www.rechsteiner-basel.ch/allepub/41

I intend to write more about this later (this is the site of a Swiss member of parliament who has been reading us and written to me recently)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 08:48:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Plan 2. People displaced from coal, oil and gas extraction and refining industries in the affected region will be given job retraining to work in the replacement sectors. Those not able to transition to other employment will be be provided with lifetime income replacement assistance. Private owners of discontinued natural resource firms will be bought out by a new state owned corporation set up for this purpose. The funds for this will be obtained by means of a new fuel use transition tax that will be added to all conventional fossil fuel purchases. Once the buyout is complete and the raw materials are no longer used for fuel (chemical feed stocks will still be permitted) the tax will be eliminated.

Given that the EU already has plans for a "Globalisation adjustment fund, I can't see why something like this would not be feasible (unlike nanne in a parallel comment, who thinks these kinds of proposals are more "big government" than people are willing to put up with).

European Commission: European Globalisation adjustment (01-03-2006)

EU workers will be helped back to work by a new annual fund of up to €500 million, that could benefit every year up to 50,000 workers in the EU, especially in the regions and sectors hit by major changes in world trade patterns. The new 'European Globalisation adjustment Fund' (EGF), proposed today by the Commission, will provide one-off, time limited individual support for tailor-made services to help, for example, workers affected by globalisation with individual wage allowances, re-training or concrete assistance to find new jobs.
President Barroso outlined the thinking which led to today's proposal. "The Globalisation adjustment Fund will express the Union's solidarity towards those severely and personally affected by trade-adjustment redundancies. In this way, it will provide a stimulus to respond appropriately and effectively to the adverse impact of market opening. The fund will help workers made redundant back to work because we want a competitive, but also a fair EU," he said.
EU Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities Commissioner, Vladimir Spidla, added: "This Fund is about people. In a globalised economy, some workers in particular sectors regrettably lose their jobs. As the EU takes external trade decisions, it is logical that it takes responsibility through this new European Globalisation adjustment Fund, to ensure workers who lose their jobs due to such trade changes are neither forgotten nor ignored in a changing economic environment."

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 06:55:15 AM EST

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

500 million is token money. I would be in favour of any increase, which is likely to happen during the budget review in 2008. I don't think that a sector-specific social restructuring plan is necessarily a bad idea, although I would favour a general (national or European) adjustment plan coupled with further-going regional plans, where specific regions are especially affected.

I don't agree with rdf that people from the resource extraction and refining economy who are unable to find work should be given 'lifetime income replacement' as I think that it gives them the wrong incentives, and it's unfair to other people who lose their jobs. Beyond getting extensive job training, if they are unemployed they should fall under the general system of unemployment benefits and, later on, welfare.

Buying out the private owners of discontinued resource firms is completely wrongheaded. The companies will have to restructure themselves and people who own their stock should not be indemnified if they fail.

P.S. if you look at the value of the resource extraction and refining economy and the amount of people working in it I think you'd be looking an unfanthomable increase in the EU's budget. Royal Dutch Shell alone is worth almost two times the EU's annual budget (market value).

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 11:57:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

Sometimes you have to do uneconomic or unfair things to get the co-operation of people who would otherwise block progress. Investors (and the politicians they own) will be less likely to block change if they don't stand to lose money. Think of it as a form of nationalization by an eminent domain taking.

This is done in agriculture all the time. Transition help for tobacco farmers, general crop support systems, and paying for taking land out of production.

Lifetime income support doesn't mean paying workers a stipend equal to what they were getting before, it may just mean a supplement if they can no longer earn as much. How much and how long could depend upon a person's age, number of years in the industry and similar factors.

Shutting down the most powerful international industrial sector is unlikely if the investors are going to take a loss. There are just too many people involved that have a vested interested in preserving the status quo. Exxon is still arguing that there is no such thing as human effects on climate change and as the largest industrial enterprise in the world they have the money to spread such disinformation.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 01:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan (none / 0)

The point you make is generally valid. But in order to buy all of these companies out and provide a level of support for its workers you'd need to increase the overall level of taxation by 2 to 5 percentage points. This will also cause a lot of resistance.

Taxes will generally cause a lot of problems in the EU because they need to be agreed upon unanimously. We might get a carbon tax through if its spending is left to the Member States, or replaces (part of) payments the Member States make to the EU budget. Not if it's part of a project of social engineering on a grand scale. So it's an unpragmatic solution to a practical problem.

The energy companies in Europe are less hopeless than those in the USA. Shell and BP don't fund climate change denialists, and have made some tentative steps towards diversifying their portfolio with renewables. With some luck, they may make the turn.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 02:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't Call It a Tax (4.00 / 2)

Call it a "Pay-As-You-Go Environment Restoration Fund" or some such nonsense.

You'd be astonished what happens with a wee bit of Framing.

No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 12:44:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Energize Europe: Zero-th draft plan | 73 comments (73 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]