Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The stimulus saved the US wind industry in 2009 | 63 comments (63 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
bah (4.00 / 2)
who cares if we're "left behind" as long as we do what is right for us? Why should we grow as fast as developing countries or, in the case of wind, of laggards like the US?

Europe's number is likely to be above 8,000 MW (I don't know, thus the rounded percentage for the offshore portion), continuing on a stable trend over the past few years.

The onshore wind resource in Europe is weaker and harder to tap than in the US (population densities et al) - except in the UK which has its specific set of NIMBY and regulatory issues hampering the development - so what has been done in Europe is not bad, and the push into offshore ensures that this continues.

I'll let CH comment on technology, but most of the R&D is in Europe, still, and the developments for offshore will remain here - and that's the big growth area for us.

But I find such comparisons and questions about decline (or being "left behind") silly. Why even think that?

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jan 26th, 2010 at 12:11:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: bah (none / 1)
I'm thinking like that because:

  1. If the US is considered a laggard then I wondered whether the EU was also starting to lag (behind its own commitments) despite the history of a more positive regulatory environment and the 20/30% commitment to reducing carbon emissions

  2. I would like to see the EU continuing to lead in such progressive industries (as opposed to armaments, oil, exotic financial engineering etc.)

  3. Whether we like it or not we are in competition with the US, China etc. for jobs and sustainable living standards/state services.

  4. The sustainable electricity generation and distribution infrastructure is an example, par excellence, of the benefits of cross-border cooperation in finance, R&D, regulation, market access, production and distribution - and thus an important driver of EU cooperation and integration.

  5. What's wrong with having another EU "success story" to counter the neo-lib narrative?


notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jan 26th, 2010 at 01:16:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: bah (none / 1)
  1. I don't see how US = laggard leads to Europe = laggard. Seriously. Why??
  2. Sure. Haven't you been reading my previous diaries on wind?
  3. Most of the discourse is about the relative decline of Europe because Asia is catching up on us. Their catching up does not mean we get any poorer or less sustainable; quite the opposite, it's likely that the more they 'catch up', the less sutainable their economies are. Maybe this needs to be pointed out too.
  4. well energy regulation is made in Brussels. And again, this is the only exemple that works in the world.
  5. nothing's wrong with that. But we're talking about wind, one of the great European success stories of the past decade or two, and yet you come up with that notion of decline. Maybe the neo-lib narrative is in your head!


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jan 26th, 2010 at 01:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: bah (none / 1)
If the US is delivering 10 Gigabytes and the EU (by your previous diary) is producing c. 6 Gigabytes of new capacity in 2009 then I found it surprising that the EU was delivering less new capacity than the US especially considering the much greater and longer term commitment to wind in the EU - even given the EU's greater installed base and other constraints.  

I was raising a question that those numbers suggested to me and looking for clarification - not making a proclamation - and am happy to see that those numbers were not quite accurate and don't give the full picture.  No need to see all questions as evidence of hostility.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jan 26th, 2010 at 02:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: bah (4.00 / 3)
Not repeating what Jérôme already answered to this; why do you focus on comparing new installations only? By adding 10GW, the USA only reached 35GW total -- while by adding 6-8GW, the EU will reach 71-73GW. Quite a different level to have high growth at, especially considering our less good on-shore potential. Once European off-shore construction gears up, it will be a question if the USA will ever catch up.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 03:22:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: bah (none / 0)
of course, DoDo, some of us are too close to the trees to remember the forest, thanks for the most simple answer.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 04:27:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: bah (4.00 / 2)
This is like GDP and GDP growth (or indeed, especially for Ireland, wealth and GDP).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 08:28:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: bah (none / 0)
...and in the US overweening significance of changes in housing inventory (e.g. MoM new constraction and existing "supply", commercial and residential "investment", average unit price) rather than cumulative housing stock.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 10:59:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
new installations only (none / 0)
DoDo:
why do you focus on comparing new installations only?

Because that was the focus of Jerome's diary. Jeez - is one not allowed to ask a question around here?!

For the record:  I am delighted that (despite a less optimal wind resource) the EU is so well advanced in developing its wind power and still retaining a significant if lesser share in new installations.  I am sure we would all like to see both the EU and the USA continuing to do more and accelerating the rate of growth and overcoming the technical and infrastructural obstacles to doing that.

Sustainable energy production and CO2 emissions reduction is one of the shining lights of the EU and I was disappointed to see the EU lose much of its political leadership position on the issue at Copenhagen.  I am glad that, as CH has confirmed, it is not losing its economic and technological leadership role in that area and hope it will lead to reduced use of gas and other carbon energy sources as time goes on.

I really don't see any room for complacency on this issue - we should be fighting for the EU to do better on a broader range of fronts - rather than being overly self-satisfied at what we have achieved to date.  Jerome has already written about the headwinds he faced in putting a financial deal together and there are many other factors inhibiting the development of the industry.  

Ireland, for example, has an almost incomparable wind resource but its development is being inhibited by a lack of finance, entrepreneurial activity, regulatory restraints on the national electricity supplier increasing its output, and lack of integration with a broader European electricity grid which could help to smooth out the peaks and troughs of wind power production.

Instead of arguing about how great we are, we have to do better.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 08:59:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 1)
Because that was the focus of Jerome's diary.

Sigh. Jérôme's focus was US growth, not the comparison of US and other growth, and even less an analysis of falling behind...

I really don't see any room for complacency on this issue - we should be fighting for the EU to do better on a broader range of fronts - rather than being overly self-satisfied at what we have achieved to date.

That's good. Though it is more local, with the obstacles typically being local regulations.

Instead of arguing about how great we are, we have to do better.

You were arguing that we are worse than others -- if you wanted to speak about doing better compared to ourselves, you derailed your own argument there.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 09:46:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 0)
DoDo:
You were arguing that we are worse than others -- if you wanted to speak about doing better compared to ourselves, you derailed your own argument there.

Is it not possible to note both that - as Jerome's figures revealed - the EU installed less new capacity than the US last year, and that the EU should try to do better?  I am now left wondering what all this extreme sensitivity and slightly insulting responses to asking a simple question means.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 10:02:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 1)
Is it not possible to note both that - as Jerome's figures revealed - the EU installed less new capacity than the US last year, and that the EU should try to do better?

That would be two independent statements -- but didn't you conclude one from the other? (If not, what was the point of noting that the EU may have installed less?) Did our replies not challenge the rationale for comparison, in multiple ways (resource to exploit, level of current exploitation, long-term trends)? It read like an argument about US and EU GDP growth.

I am now left wondering what all this extreme sensitivity and slightly insulting responses to asking a simple question means.

Well -- I can't speak for others whether they actually felt sensitivity (extreme or not) or intended to hurl insults (slight or not), but I myself sighed because I didn't think your re-framed version meant the same as what you yourself and Jérôme said earlier.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 10:18:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 0)
DoDo:
Did our replies not challenge the rationale for comparison, in multiple ways

Perhaps you missed the following in the original question:

Frank Schnittger:

I appreciate that onshore is quicker, cheaper and easier to deliver, and the US has a huge advantage in onshore wind resources.  But they also have a crap grid and poor corporate infrastructure for enhancing it.  So who is going to hit capacity constraints for integrating wind power sooner?  Where are the EU and US on developing smart grids and efficient means of moving gigawatts of power from wind resource rich regions to wind poor but high demand regions?

The reality is that both continents face differing challenges of geography, infrastructure, finance and politics, and I was trying to find out more about how well both were doing in addressing them.  I don't think that is a silly question that only neo-libs would ask, and I don't know what your sighing added to the conversation. Wind energy is hardly my specialist subject but I had been planning to do a diary on the Irish Electricity Supply Board's plans in sustainable and intermittent power sources in the area and wanted to get a handle on the bigger picture.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 10:57:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 1)
Perhaps you missed the following in the original question:

I shall reply to it more specifically below, but it (1) doesn't justify the comment's title, (2) doesn't change the validity of our challenges of the rationale for comparison.

But they also have a crap grid and poor corporate infrastructure for enhancing it. So who is going to hit capacity constraints for integrating wind power sooner?

As a serious problem, that's in the future, on both continents. As an excuse raised by regulators stopping wind in certain regions, that's the recent past: see the crash of the market a few years ago in Hungary and Austria, and that's Europe. Meanwhile, zoning laws and the scramble for the best on-shore wind sites are real constraints on rapid on-shore expansion at the present, in Europe.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 03:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 1)
Besides, though Crazy Horse will argue that there is still plenty of room for expansion on-shore, methinks the bulk of that is in certain problematic countries (UK, France), off-shore is rolling off now, and the focus should now be on photovoltaic, and more pilot projects for others (like concentrated solar or hot-dry-rock geothermal, the second also for distance heating).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 09:51:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 1)
because your whole premise is based on saying that only 6GW will have been built in Europe last year, a number you pulled out of incomplete and voluntarily approximative data on the proportion of offshore in the total, and you then jumped right into a "Europe is declining theme" which I find exasperating, and not just from the WSJ.


I was disappointed to see the EU lose much of its political leadership position on the issue at Copenhagen.

As far as I can tell, the EU lost the leadership of nothing: China, the US and others all happily agreed between themsleves to ignore the problem and do nothing. That's not leadership, that's denial.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 11:48:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 0)
No, my whole premise was that I could ask a civil question based on approximate data you had provided and get a civil reply. Noting that Europe installed less new capacity than the US may not be on message for an EU PR flunkey but that is not my role.  Neither do I parrot a WSJ "Europe is declining" meme and I would thank you for not seeking to brand me with that ideology.

As for Copenhagen, you must be one of the few people that doesn't think that it represented a setback for attempts to mitigate climate change and the EU's attempt to lead that process forward.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 01:26:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 0)
Neither do I parrot a WSJ "Europe is declining" meme

You kicked off this whole meandering subthread with

EU being left behind again?


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 03:03:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 0)
I think it was the "again" that rubbed people the wrong way, because it implies a trend of being overtaken by other powers. Such a trend does not seem to be in evidence.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 03:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 0)
The again was actually a reference to the Copenhagen debacle where the EU had been in a leadership position but was left out of the talks which led to what little agreement was eventually reached.

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 06:44:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 1)
There was nothing in the initial comment to indicate that this was a Copenhagen reference, so you have to acknowledge at least that you left yourself open to misinterpretation.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jan 28th, 2010 at 07:07:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 0)
So no one is allowed to ask the question whether it is possible that the EU is falling behind in some aspect or other without being accused of being a silly WSJ neo-lib?  A simple factual reply - such as that provided by CH - would have sufficed.

Indeed I was glad to read his comments that the 2009 rate of installation in the EU need not be a cause for concern - although I am concerned that progress in Ireland seems to have slowed and the senior manager from the ESB I spoke to seemed to have little time for wind power as a priority despite the fact that the ESB's own strategic plan calls for a €22 Billion investment in renewable energy and a commitment to generate one third of all power from renewables by 2020.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 07:33:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: new installations only (none / 0)
So no one is allowed to ask the question whether it is possible that the EU is falling behind in some aspect

See discussion of "again" elsewhere. (And your above reply could have reflected that, coming after your reply to JakeS.)

A simple factual reply - such as that provided by CH - would have sufficed.

Your thread-starter wasn't or at least couldn't be read obviously as a simple factual question, you have to see that.

I am concerned that progress in Ireland seems to have slowed

I would more characterise the situation there as "still hasn't taken off". 2008 installations were 208 MW, this year's seem to be 250 MW (Or maybe even 500 MW -- it's confusing because the Irish Wind Energy Association's statistics page is a mess, and they seem to insist on including Northern Ireland in Ireland.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jan 28th, 2010 at 07:17:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
well, (none / 1)
don't put "Europe left behind again" as your title if you have such innocuous intentions.


As for Copenhagen, you must be one of the few people that doesn't think that it represented a setback for attempts to mitigate climate change and the EU's attempt to lead that process forward.

Where did I say that it was not a setback for attempts to mitigate climate change? All I said is that it is easy to "lead" to a deal if the deal is to do nothing. That the EU was not involved in such deal is not a valid criticism of its leadership. Its leadership is demonstrated by the fact that it is the only one to have binding targets on itself - and it has the credibility of having met the Kyoto targets it imposed on itself in the 90s. Whether these targets are enough is another issue, but at least the EU has acted, both in setting goals and, so far, in fulfilling them.

The only way to pull China in will be through an all out trade war, and I expect we'll get there eventually, if no deal happens.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 03:38:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: well, (none / 0)
We would have to purge a number of Quisling governments first.

Starting with the COP15 hosts...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 at 10:42:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The stimulus saved the US wind industry in 2009 | 63 comments (63 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: