Comments on: Emission cuts realities for electricity generation – costs and CO2 emissions

By: andrew lang

andrew lang — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 13:45:45 +0000

no relation to this Peter Lang who obviously hadn’t heard of the approach of Sweden, Finland, Poland, Austria, Denmark etc in using biomass (and municipal waste) to produce a significant amount of their energy when he wrote this book.

In the case of Sweden it is over 31% (already more than any other source including hydro or nuclear) heading for over 39% by 2020. Finland gets nearly 20% of its electricity from biomass and 50% of primary energy in central Finland,
Brazil is a high achiever, India is developing biomass-fuelled baseload off-grid mini-grid systems for 10,000 villages using biomass fuelled gasifiers. Overall India can get 10% of electricity from biomass plus a vast amount of domestic and industrial heat. China is building biomass fuelled power plants using straw.
But nothing about biomass in this book, or other books that portray themselves as authoritative, but have similar flaws in their initial approach.

By: Talha Jamshaid

Talha Jamshaid — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:27:23 +0000

This is a very informative article..I have made my effort in explaing how the Current Energy

Order is Changing and Changing Fast..The link is given below..

http://authorshive.com/2010/11/24/current-energy-order-is-changing-fast/

By: Peter Lang

Peter Lang — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:03:17 +0000

William Dornsife,

Thank you for your comment and also welcome to BNC (if you haven’t posted previously; I haven’t seen your posts before).

You are correct of course and these issues are coverend in much more detail on other threads and many comments on various threads. You might be interested in the TCASE4 and TCASE8 articles here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/

And also this article:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/

By: William Dornsife

William Dornsife — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:03:07 +0000

The report indicated that 8x more concrete and 15x more steel is needed for construction of windpower per MW compared to nuclear. What the report failed to consider is the energy required to produce these materials and the hazardous wastes that are produced. My calculations indicate that more energy/MW over its life time is required for windpower compared to nuclear, thus resulting in a larger carbon footprint for windpower. This assumes centrifuge enrichment for nuclear fuel production. I assume this would be worst for solar since it requires more materials. Any life cycle analysis needs to include this consideration. There is no free lunch in energy production

By: TCASE 12: A checklist for renewable energy plans « BraveNewClimate

TCASE 12: A checklist for renewable energy plans « BraveNewClimate — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:03:16 +0000

[...] Lang has calculated the emissions avoidance cost here for a number of generation [...]

By: John Newlands

John Newlands — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:07:25 +0000

I recall the thread on the John Quiggin blog (now in hiatus) in which the ‘baseload fallacy’ was taken as pre-condition for discussion. A certain commenter was given free rein while others were in effect censored. However one comment troubled me which was that European wind power had greatly increased while nuclear output had declined. It also grew faster in absolute terms than gas fired generation. Apart from retirement of nuclear plant I now believe the response should have been that European wind generators were made an offer too good to refuse.

To the best of my knowledge Euro wind gets multiple layers of help. On the one hand they get mandates or quotas i.e. guaranteed custom. That’s the ‘cake’. On top of that they get a thick layer of icing in the form of feed-in tariffs. If there was any way to integrate wind power into the mix it would be crazy not to take the money. I think that answers an open question from the Quiggin blog.

By: John Morgan

John Morgan — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:47:36 +0000

I certainly wouldn’t want to see anyone banned on this basis. When posters like BilB demonstrably fail to substantiate their assertions, they make our case for us.

That said, I would really like to see BilB’s continued engagement with this discussion to some sort of closure, so if anyone encounters him in discussions elsewhere please remind him of his promises here, and drop a link here.

By: Finrod

Finrod — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:02:04 +0000

Gone but not forgotten. I’m confident that in a decade or so, the reality of what BilB and fellow-travellers were really fighting for will be well recognised in political and legal circles, and every effort will be made to track these people down so they don’t evade their overdue appointment with the gallows.

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:25:17 +0000

BilB is gone – this type fights until they are cornered with a demand for facts, and when they realize they cannot supply them, they first try and hijack the thread, then they vanish. If that person ever posts again here, it will be under another name.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:13:36 +0000

if someone considently adds absolutely nothing, other than libel, then can’t they just be banned? BilB back up your opinion with numbers, figures or facts. Otherwise go home.

By: Finrod

Finrod — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:36:42 +0000

BilB has been ‘getting around’ to a number of critical posts which contain the information and references needed to back up his points for well over a month now. He’s only managed to find time to throw around unsupported assertions so far, so we can only conclude that he is extraordinarily busy.

Or something.

By: Peter Lang

Peter Lang — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:45:23 +0000

BilB

We’re still waiting.

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 05:23:36 +0000

I have enabled comments on the page that my screen name links to. If you want to discuss my qualifications and work history with me, do it there.

By: BilB

BilB — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 03:48:23 +0000

Dv8 it is you who is flinging the insults around with gay abandon, so expect to eventually get some back. No libel there. Just a question. What sort of technician where you?

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 03:04:27 +0000

No numbers just noise, insults and now libel. Every time you post you dig the hole you are in a little deeper. Holding true to the pattern I wrote about above.

By: BilB

BilB — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:50:15 +0000

Getting to it, Dv8, but having read your background an philosophy I’m surprised that you haven’t picked the huge number of holes in Peter’s projected conclusions from his essay. I’ve got to wonder how thorough you were as a technician.

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 03:20:49 +0000

Oh I’m detached all right. This poster has provided no facts, and no substantive logic to back his claims. He has made several transparently false attempts to style himself an expert, and then demands we accept what he says on that basis.

This is not the first time I have run across this sort of wannabe fraud on the net, nor will it be the last. It’s always the same – they can never back up their claims ever and will string it out as long as they can. The usual pattern is for them to push as far as they can, until a critical number of people, demand reference, or call them out, then they disappear in a cloud of insults, suggesting that they are throwing pearls among swine.

After awhile you can pick up on these types almost as soon as they first post.

By: John Morgan

John Morgan — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 03:08:26 +0000

BilB, DV82XL, lets detach and wait until we have something specific to discuss. BilB, you promised to seek a review of Peter's analysis from a colleague, and to formalize some of your objections, particularly with regard to the use of the Queanbeayan installation as a model. Are you still intending to provide these responses?

By: BilB

BilB — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 02:49:44 +0000

Fair enough.

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Mon, 31 May 2010 22:30:47 +0000

Well I’ll leave the others here to be the judge of which one of us should be taken seriously.