Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Scotland temporarily ran entirely on wind power as turbines generated over 200 percent of national electricity demand. [View all]
NNadir
(38,125 posts)21. Bullshit. Hickley C will be saving lives half a century after every wind turbine in Scotland has become landfill.
I don't get my information from Wikipedia. I get it from the primary scientific literature and official organizations, for instance the Danish Energy Agency.
One agency that drives the depressing data that I have been reporting in series here for years, is the data from the NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory. The latest in this multiyear series was last Sunday (they appear in the March-June time frame every year) : New Weekly CO2 Concentration Record Set at the Mauna Loa Observatory, 431.73 ppm
These series always include a data section and a section on the cost and uselessness of so called "renewable energy" while commenting on the accelerating rate of the collapse of the planetary atmosphere despite the trillion dollars squandered on solar and wind energy along with grid connections for that garbage:
Most of the time I produce posts in this series, I refer to increases of the 1 year week to week comparators, generally when one of the readings among the 2,617 week to week comparators recorded at the observatory appears in the top fifty. For this week, week 18 of 2025, the increase over week 18 of 2024, the increase is 3.96 ppm higher, which places it as the 15th highest out of these 2617 points of annual week to week comparators going back to the mid 1970's.
The current reading is the 9th reading to exceed 430 ppm, seven of which happened last year, out of 2617 week to week comparators going back to the opening of the observatory in the second half of the 1970s.
It is one of only 38 readings to exceed an increase of 4.00 ppm, the first to place in the current year. Four of these readings exceed increases of 5.00 ppm, three of which were in 2024. Of the top 50 week to week/year to year comparators 27 have taken place in the last 5 years of which 13 occurred in 2024, 3 in 2025, 38 in the last 10 years, and 46 in this century.
Of the five readings from the 20th century, four occurred in 1998, when huge stretches of the Malaysian and Indonesian rainforests caught fire when slash and burn fires went out of control. These fires were set deliberately, designed to add palm oil plantations to satisfy the demand for "renewable" biodiesel for German cars and trucks as part of their "renewable energy portfolio." This case represents just one of the many cases demonstrating the unacceptable profile of so called “renewable energy” with respect to land use. The only other reading from the 20th century to appear in the top 50 occurred in the week beginning August 21, 1988, which was 3.91 ppm higher than the same week of the previous year. For about ten years, until July of 1998, it was the highest reading ever recorded. It is now the 47th highest.
The current reading is the 9th reading to exceed 430 ppm, seven of which happened last year, out of 2617 week to week comparators going back to the opening of the observatory in the second half of the 1970s.
It is one of only 38 readings to exceed an increase of 4.00 ppm, the first to place in the current year. Four of these readings exceed increases of 5.00 ppm, three of which were in 2024. Of the top 50 week to week/year to year comparators 27 have taken place in the last 5 years of which 13 occurred in 2024, 3 in 2025, 38 in the last 10 years, and 46 in this century.
Of the five readings from the 20th century, four occurred in 1998, when huge stretches of the Malaysian and Indonesian rainforests caught fire when slash and burn fires went out of control. These fires were set deliberately, designed to add palm oil plantations to satisfy the demand for "renewable" biodiesel for German cars and trucks as part of their "renewable energy portfolio." This case represents just one of the many cases demonstrating the unacceptable profile of so called “renewable energy” with respect to land use. The only other reading from the 20th century to appear in the top 50 occurred in the week beginning August 21, 1988, which was 3.91 ppm higher than the same week of the previous year. For about ten years, until July of 1998, it was the highest reading ever recorded. It is now the 47th highest.
As for antinukes indifference to fossil fuels while they push the grotesquely failed "renewable energy" scam, lipstick on the fossil fuel pig:
One can also look at news websites to learn, for instance, that six days ago the Scottish government announced support for new dangerous natural gas facilities, but we can see, given the crap handed out about Hinkley C, that as usual, defenders of the obscene so called "renewable energy" scam couldn't care less about fossil fuels. Their sole goal, despite occasional crocodile tears about the collapse of the planetary atmosphere is to attack nuclear energy.
Scot News: UK Government set to approve major North Sea project amid Iran war
It comes as the SNP appeared to signal a shift in their position on North Sea production, with First Minister John Swinney saying the conflict in the Middle East and questions of energy security "changes the balance of the arguments".
This begs the question I asked, citing a paper by a scientist who has left academia that is somewhat obscure, as is the scientist, Robert Idel, that is nonetheless racking up citations even as he went to work in the travel industry:
LFSCOE: The True Cost of Solar and Wind Energy in Texas and Germany in Answer to the Question...
"...if it (solar and wind so called "renewable energy" ) is the cheapest source while not emitting CO2, why are countries still investing heavily in new gas and coal power plants? Is it just because coal generation may employ more people in politically sensitive regions of the country, or are there financial reasons not reflected in the LCOE?"
This interesting question, which should be a pretty obvious question to ask, although apparently it isn't often asked, given that the trillions of dollars squandered on solar and wind energy has no effect whatsoever on slowing the acceleration of the collapse of the planetary atmosphere, nor have they resulted in a suspension of the construction of coal and gas plants anywhere on the planet, is asked in this wonderful paper:
Robert Idel, Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity, Energy, Volume 259, 2022, 124905.
This interesting question, which should be a pretty obvious question to ask, although apparently it isn't often asked, given that the trillions of dollars squandered on solar and wind energy has no effect whatsoever on slowing the acceleration of the collapse of the planetary atmosphere, nor have they resulted in a suspension of the construction of coal and gas plants anywhere on the planet, is asked in this wonderful paper:
Robert Idel, Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity, Energy, Volume 259, 2022, 124905.
Denmark has stopped updating the Master Register of Wind Turbines probably because it made it very clear how pathetic the lifetime of this land and material intensive fossil fuel dependent junk is.
I analyzed the data here:
A Commentary on Failure, Delusion and Faith: Danish Data on Big Wind Turbines and Their Lifetimes.
...and here:
The Growth Rate of the Danish Wind Industry As Compared to the New Finnish EPR Nuclear Reactor.
Some excerpts from the former:
There are 1,230 commissioned wind turbines in Denmark that are larger than 2000 kW (2MW). There are 40 decommissioned wind turbines in Denmark that are larger than 2000 kW (2MW).
There are commissioned two wind turbines in this class that have operated for more than 20 years, both have a power rating of 2300 kW, 2.3 MW. One, the oldest in the set, is a prototype, a turbine located at Ikast-Brande. It's not performing well. If one takes the average of its two highest years of energy production, and compares it to the most recent complete year of data, that of 2021, one can calculate that in 2021 it produced just 36.01% (in "percent talk" ) of the average of its two best years.
Another commissioned large wind turbine, an 8600 kW (8.5 MW) wind turbine listed as commissioned on October 5, 2018, the turbine at Thistead, produced 23,031,560 kWh of electricity in 2019, 24,986,470 kWh of electricity in 2020, and 6,161,830 kWh in 2021, having apparently failed in the latter year. It's produced zero energy in all of 2022 thus far. The capacity utilization of this turbine was thus 30.55% in 2019, 33.14% in 2020, 8.17% in 2021 and 0.00% as of this writing in 2022. Over it's lifetime, through March 30, 2022 - the date this version of the Master Register ends - the capacity utilization of this broke down "commissioned" turbine operated, its overall capacity utilization was 20.6%. If it has not been repaired as of July 17, 2022 - if it ever will be - it's capacity utilization will have fallen to 19.0%.
The largest commissioned wind turbine listed is the 14000 kW unit also at Thistead. It was commissioned on December 9, 2021, but still has not produced a single Watt of energy.
Of the 1,230 commissioned wind turbines larger than 2MW, only 471 have operated for more than 10 years. So there is no data to support that they will last more than 20 years other than the two 2300 kW (2.3MW) turbines, which may or may not prove to be outliers, to support a handwaving assertion that agrees with the statement of the antinuke that because of the putative "simple concept" that...
There are commissioned two wind turbines in this class that have operated for more than 20 years, both have a power rating of 2300 kW, 2.3 MW. One, the oldest in the set, is a prototype, a turbine located at Ikast-Brande. It's not performing well. If one takes the average of its two highest years of energy production, and compares it to the most recent complete year of data, that of 2021, one can calculate that in 2021 it produced just 36.01% (in "percent talk" ) of the average of its two best years.
Another commissioned large wind turbine, an 8600 kW (8.5 MW) wind turbine listed as commissioned on October 5, 2018, the turbine at Thistead, produced 23,031,560 kWh of electricity in 2019, 24,986,470 kWh of electricity in 2020, and 6,161,830 kWh in 2021, having apparently failed in the latter year. It's produced zero energy in all of 2022 thus far. The capacity utilization of this turbine was thus 30.55% in 2019, 33.14% in 2020, 8.17% in 2021 and 0.00% as of this writing in 2022. Over it's lifetime, through March 30, 2022 - the date this version of the Master Register ends - the capacity utilization of this broke down "commissioned" turbine operated, its overall capacity utilization was 20.6%. If it has not been repaired as of July 17, 2022 - if it ever will be - it's capacity utilization will have fallen to 19.0%.
The largest commissioned wind turbine listed is the 14000 kW unit also at Thistead. It was commissioned on December 9, 2021, but still has not produced a single Watt of energy.
Of the 1,230 commissioned wind turbines larger than 2MW, only 471 have operated for more than 10 years. So there is no data to support that they will last more than 20 years other than the two 2300 kW (2.3MW) turbines, which may or may not prove to be outliers, to support a handwaving assertion that agrees with the statement of the antinuke that because of the putative "simple concept" that...
From the latter:
To understand the average lifetime of wind turbines, it is almost certainly better to look at those that have been decommissioned, those listed in the the afmeldte, "decommissioned" tab. Denmark has built 9,740 turbines and decommissioned 3,444 of them, roughly 35% in "percent talk." The average age of decommissioned wind turbines is 17 years and 317 days, slightly longer than the 2018 figure I calculated back then, which was 17 years and 283 days, an improvement of a whopping 34 days.
The total peak capacity of all the wind turbines in Denmark can be determined from the spreadsheet. For ikke-afmeldte, "non-decommissioned," wind turbines, is 7035.3 "MW." There are 31556927 seconds in a tropical year. The theoretical energy produced for reliable power that can operate at or close to 100% capacity utilization - nuclear plants are the only power infrastructure that have demonstrated the ability to do this for periods of a year or longer - is thus for all the wind turbines in Denmark to 5 significant figures is 0.22201 Exajoules. In 2021, the last full year for which we have the total energy output of all the wind turbines in Denmark was 0.057962 Exajoules, this on a planet where, as of 2020 - albeit constrained by Covid - was 584 Exajoules. Thus the capacity utilization of all the wind turbines in Denmark (to be fair, including the ikke-afmeldte, "non-decommissioned," turbines that were inoperable or marginally operable) was 26.1%...
The total peak capacity of all the wind turbines in Denmark can be determined from the spreadsheet. For ikke-afmeldte, "non-decommissioned," wind turbines, is 7035.3 "MW." There are 31556927 seconds in a tropical year. The theoretical energy produced for reliable power that can operate at or close to 100% capacity utilization - nuclear plants are the only power infrastructure that have demonstrated the ability to do this for periods of a year or longer - is thus for all the wind turbines in Denmark to 5 significant figures is 0.22201 Exajoules. In 2021, the last full year for which we have the total energy output of all the wind turbines in Denmark was 0.057962 Exajoules, this on a planet where, as of 2020 - albeit constrained by Covid - was 584 Exajoules. Thus the capacity utilization of all the wind turbines in Denmark (to be fair, including the ikke-afmeldte, "non-decommissioned," turbines that were inoperable or marginally operable) was 26.1%...
Energy consumption 3 years later has exceeded 650 Exajoules as of 2024.
As for antinukes whining about the cost and timelines of Western nuclear plants, I note that in former times, between 1965 and 1985, the United States built more than 100 nuclear reactors, 94 of which still operate, while providing the cheapest electricity possible. The reason the US can no longer do this is because antinukes - I compare them to arsonists complaining about forest fires - did everything possible to destroy US nuclear manufacturing infrastructure with appeals to fear and ignorance.
The Chinese don't give a rat's ass about the rhetoric of antinukes. In this century they brought 61 nuclear reactors on line and have 39 under construction, a rate of nuclear power plant building not seen on this planet since the US and France in the late 20th century.
Regrettably, it's not enough. It's too little too late.
Please spare me the battery and hydrogen bullshit, by the way. I'm a physical scientist and thus I am aware of the laws of thermodynamics, as well as the material issues that make so called "renewable energy" unsustainable, inasmuch the word "renewable" is as dishonest as anything dribbling out of the mouth or keyboard of the Orange Pedophile in the White House.
Have a nice evening.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Scotland temporarily ran entirely on wind power as turbines generated over 200 percent of national electricity demand. [View all]
Swede
19 hrs ago
OP
We could learn a lot from our European friends if we would get our head out of our ass.
walkingman
19 hrs ago
#1
Nonsense. It isn't rocket science to understand that the wind doesn't blow continuously.
NNadir
17 hrs ago
#9
I was just thinking the other day I hadn't seen an NNadir pro-nuke post in awhile
AZJonnie
16 hrs ago
#10
Yes I've read many dozens of NNadir's posts over the years, you don't have to get me up to speed
AZJonnie
15 hrs ago
#15
Trashing coastal environments with tidal power schemes isn't going to save the world.
hunter
6 hrs ago
#25
This is now getting tiresome. I didn't realize a good news story about Scotland would bring on the nuclear fanboys.
Emrys
6 hrs ago
#28
Bullshit. Hickley C will be saving lives half a century after every wind turbine in Scotland has become landfill.
NNadir
10 hrs ago
#21
They will need to be bombed over this and their regime changed. Too threatening to Big Oil. (SARCASM).
artemisia1
16 hrs ago
#11
Wouldn't it be great to read, United States of America temporarily ran entirely on wind power...
Passages
10 hrs ago
#22