Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
About 70GW have been built in 2002-2007. If you exclude the 15GW built in China and India, about 55GW have been built in the OECD, and my bank has participated to roughly 15-20% of that, leading the way, ie negotiating and putting in place the financing in half of that.

Now, because of the financial crisis, which has nothing to do with wind power (I don't think a wind farm as such has caused any bank to lose any money yet), lending capacity is drying and seriously handicapping projects - including for the projects I'm working on.

Irresponsible bankers and financiers are a truly evil breed.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Oct 6th, 2008 at 04:51:13 PM EST
Your points are valid, and I'll drink a toast to wind any day. Of course, to really make it zoom, you'd have to figure out how to make a weapon out of it. And, of course, you'd have to figure out how to create giant boondoggles for the cronies of the ministers who give or need campaign money to get elected.

I object to only pointing out that it is irresponsible bankers and financiers who are truly evil since there are so many other enablers...including irresponsible consumers.

I wonder: Suppose we define a banker as someone who facilitates the saving and exploitation of saved money in a manner that benefits the short and long-term community requirements. Now, if there are instead those who are called bankers who instead shenanigan the system such that every few years (after the previous shenanigan gets patched up) a new fix is required...are these putzes really bankers and financiers at all, or just crooks and incompetents in positions above their skill?

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Mon Oct 6th, 2008 at 05:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Suppose we define a banker as someone who facilitates the saving and exploitation of saved money in a manner that benefits the short and long-term community requirements.

The problem is that what you just described is not a Bank - it's a "Credit Union", or "Deposit Taker" (as they used to be called here in the UK).

If all Banks did was take in savings and lend them on, then there would be no "new" money = credit, and no development, either.

Banks create credit as a multiple of their capital base - essentially their Equity.

And doing so does indeed involve risk.

The problem has been that banks have been "outsourcing" that risk to a "shadow banking system" of investors through the mechanisms of securitisation, credit derivatives, credit insurance, and toxic mixtures of all three.

Now that the capital provided opaquely by these investors has gone, it's only governments who can replace it.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Oct 6th, 2008 at 07:49:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Two minor niggles:



  1. Is the comparison with installed capacity completely fair? Each MW of nuclear power will produce more energy than a MW of wind. I don't have the numbers here but I wouldn't expect that you would not get more than 2.5TWh out of 1GW of wind power, but it should be possible to get more than 5TWh out of the same installed capacity of nuclear. Of course, given the growth rate of wind power that would only mean that you would have to wait another 3-4 years and then make the comparison again.


  2. They somehow forgot solar energy (in practice PV). According to EPIA
    the installed PV capacity in Europe at the end of 2007 was 4500MW, with 1500MW installed in 2007, which is more than the "other" category in the graphs. It's not nearly as much as wind (yet), but it should at least be visible on the graphs. Admittedly, PV gives an even lower output per installed GW, at 1-2TWh/year depending on location.


Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.
by tomhuld (thomas punkt huld at jrc punkt it) on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 at 03:33:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
1 - you are absolutely correct. A wind MW does not generate as many MWh as a nuclear MW. Still, in terms of showing that the scale of development of wind matches that of nuclear, the graph is relevant.

2 - the study I quote only uses data up to 2006, so the boom in solar over the past 2 years is probably not visible in these graphs.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 at 03:56:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
  1. The comparison is between the exponentiality of the curves, using ad-hoc starting dates. The same could be done for generation, using different starting dates.

    I note that given the longer construction time for nuclear, an interesting comparison would be using the start of the construction of the first commercial plants as the respective starting date.

  2. No, it's until 2007, and PV installations were in the same ballpark in 2006. In fact, I suspect they committed another error: it seems they inserted the PV data backwards, given that the green column decreases from 2000 to 2007.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Oct 7th, 2008 at 08:33:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series