| Some comments on energy forms here in Norway.
The percentage of energy that is hydroelectric here in Norway is FAR
over 25%; at least if you are talking about electric energy (where
hydroelectric is close to 100%). In addition, a number of energy forms
that use fossil fuels in other countries (home heating, cooking--- even
industrial prossesses such as smelting) use hydroelectric power here.
Obviously automobiles, airplanes and maritime traffic use oil-based
fuels (trains are all electric).
Given the above, any "alternative" forms would have to be ALTERNATIVE
to hydroelectric power (which, in many other countries, is considered
an environmental-friendly form of energy production). Here in Norway,
there has been resistance to the developement of more hydroelectric
power from a nature/aesthetic point of view. Some "environmentalists"
have even suggested use of gas as an "alternative" energy form--- in
this case, happily trading an increase of CO2 production against seeing
more "unspoiled nature" in the form of more water in natural waterways,
waterfalls, etc.
What many of these "alternativists" fail to realize is that
hydroelectric power is already a form of solar energy. In considering
the effect on nature of either wind-dynamos, solar batteries or coastal
wave-machines, nobody seems to have given two hoots about some basic
quantitative calculations. If you were to use solar batteries, you
would have to enormous areas (of unspoiled nature) to spread these in
order to produce equivalent ammounts of KWH's that are produced by
dams. Furthermore, what is more aesthetic or nature-friendly: Great
fields of boards with solar cells fenced in and protected, or the
artificial lakes with a dam, open to fishing and other activities? How
would the coastal archipalegoes(sp?) look with miles and miles of the
requisite wave machines look? (also these would need "barriers" of some
sort against meddling humans). And the modern windmills? Huge towers
with giant airplane-propellers mounted on top (immagine fields of these
spread out everywhere that you could see them).
The problem with "alternative" energy forms (and I am talking about our
local situation here---not the world problem, where there isn't enough
hydro power), is that the enthusiasts have just not thought through
what these alternatives would really be in practice.
Mauritz
PS: the only REAL alternative is less energy use.
|
| re .1:
> Given the above, any "alternative" forms would have to be ALTERNATIVE
> to hydroelectric power (which, in many other countries, is considered
> an environmental-friendly form of energy production). Here in Norway,
> there has been resistance to the developement of more hydroelectric
> power from a nature/aesthetic point of view. Some "environmentalists"
> have even suggested use of gas as an "alternative" energy form--- in
> this case, happily trading an increase of CO2 production against seeing
> more "unspoiled nature" in the form of more water in natural waterways,
> waterfalls, etc.
I didn't mean to imply that I consider hydroelectric not to be 'alternative
energy'. I agree that hydroelectric is a great way to create electricity.
I include it along with solar and wind as 'environmentally friendly,
renewable' and so forth as long as it is not taken to extremes (i.e.
demanding that every possible site be developed regardless of other
considerations, or insisting that capacity be developed rather than trying
to reduce demand).
I spent most of the time in .0 talking about solar as a way of getting the
discussion going.
> What many of these "alternativists" fail to realize is that
> hydroelectric power is already a form of solar energy. In considering
> the effect on nature of either wind-dynamos, solar batteries or coastal
> wave-machines, nobody seems to have given two hoots about some basic
> quantitative calculations.
These kind of calculations can be difficult to make plausible.
Different interest groups (at least in the U.S.) use wildly differing base
figures for predicted demand, efficiencies, etc. in order to either justify
or attack proposals to use various alternative (wind, solar, hydro, OTEC,
coastal wave, etc.) technologies. I'll try to provide some examples of these
calculations (principally for solar, since I have some good examples)
in future replies, and we can discuss what's right or wrong with them.
> If you were to use solar batteries, you
> would have to enormous areas (of unspoiled nature) to spread these in
> order to produce equivalent ammounts of KWH's that are produced by
> dams.
You are attacking a straw horse of your own construction.
Firstly, putting aside wind, etc. for the moment, what I had in mind for
solar (my straw horse :-) would be largely house and building mounted
solar collectors (sometimes referred to as 'point of use' solar installation).
This would largely be confined to existing construction (where natural
beauty arguably has already been compromised).
Since Norway apparently generates most or all of its needs from hydroelectric
sources, there is certainly no need to 'produce equivalent amounts of KWHs
.. dams'. Please note that .0 does not propose projects to be foisted
by pushy Americans upon unwilling Norwegians; it just asks questions !
I don't think that solar technology demands huge segregated solar plantations.
Electric companies in the U.S. have traditionally emphasised plantation
style solutions, but this I think this reflects their centralised facility
mindset, and very conservative attitude (not altogether unjustified) towards
new engineering technologies.
In the U.S., electric utilities have typically been rewarded for getting
customers to use more energy, and have adopted a conventional model of
untrammeled growth in energy use that called for continuously constructing
new centralised generation and distribution facilities. Also, they are
accustomed to having complete ownership, control, and exclusive physical
access to their generation plant and most of their distribution equipment.
It is understandable therefore why they might feel nervous about the
prospect of supporting user-site-installed generation and conversion
technologies. These might dramatically alter their charter and way of doing
business. They are therefore expected to challenge the viability of
such schemes.
More later.
|
| re .2
I take your point about solar power of the "home-made" variety being a
very good alternative to centralized power generation; in fact, even as
a good way to off-load hydroelectric power plants.
Given this view, I can only state that my "straw horse" was
unintentional, and was not meant as a counter to home usage; it WAS,
however, meant to counter actual proposals made here in Norway of using
centralized solar power generation (+ centralized wave + centralized
wind-mill facilities), and in that sense the horse could indeed be made
of straw, but I was not the one that made it.
On my comments on calculations, I agree with your point (if I
understood it correctly), but I was aiming at a different direction.
there are two areas of calculation: 1) Power requirements (projections)
and 2) Power production; i.e., what is required of inputs (coal,
oil, water x height, area, coastal stretch for wave machines, sq m of
solar cells, etc) to create a specific ammount of KWH's. I interpret
your comments as relating to all the games that people can play with
calculation type 1 (projected requirements). Both environmentalists and
industrialists battle on this field. However, what I was alluding to
was the more technical (and much more certain) calculations of type 2
that are often not made by people who propose "alternative" energy
production, at ANY level of output; i.e., you agree on an output figure
(even an artificial one---today's or even half of today's), then
calculate what input factors are required for each of the alternative
power production methods to produce that output. Obviously, there is
some improvement in technology that can be expected, but some basic
laws of nature are rather persistent and these will always give you a
ceiling (conservation of mass & energy---assuming that nuclear or
fusion power is not one of the desired "alternatives").
To clarify my position then, I would see home-production as a way of
reducing the total demand (to centrally generated power), and possibly
bring the requirement calculation closer to the "half of today" level.
The issue of how to produce the centrally required type (not really a
precise term) remains. There are several interesting anomilies that
arise in this picture as well; e.g., if we manage to convert fossil
fuel driven automobiles (decentralized, or "home-production" type
energy) to, say, electric ones (assuming improvement in battery
technology), we would actually be increasing the requirement for
centrally generated energy.
Mauritz
|
| From: Tom Gray <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Date: 22 Feb 93 14:00 PST
Subject: --Swedes Plan 100 MW by 1996
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <[email protected]>
/* Written 1:44 pm Feb 22, 1993 by [email protected] in igc:en.energy */
SWEDEN TO REACH
100 MW BY 1996
Total installed wind energy generating capacity in Sweden will reach
100 MW by the year 1996, according to Vattenfall, one of Sweden's two
state utilities. Most of the capacity will be installed in the next
three years.
The Swedish wind program has been characterized by an emphasis on
research and development and very little deployment of the technology.
After 17 years of research, the Swedish wind program has installed
only 16 MW from 90 turbines, an installation rate averaging less than
one MW per year. By comparison, Denmark, Sweden's Scandinavian
neighbor, expects to have at least 650 MW of capacity in service by the
same date, making the Danish wind installation average 40 MW per year
during the same period.
Swedish wind energy development has occurred at an extremely slow pace
despite an ample wind resource. Researchers estimate that 2-5% of
Sweden's 140 billion kWh/yr electrical demand can be met by on-shore
wind turbines generating 3-7 billion kWh/year. (The lower end of that
range is equivalent to California's current wind- generated electric
power production.)
A 1988 study identified an additional 20 billion kWh/yr which could be
produced by off-shore projects, providing nearly 15% of total
consumption.
Most of the existing capacity is attributable to private projects
seeking to take advantage of Sweden's incentive program, introduced in
1991. The government has allocated $42 million for the five- year
program in which the Swedish minister of energy pays 25% of the
installed cost of turbines larger than 60 kW. Under current economic
conditions, Swedish utilities estimate that the funding should prove
sufficient for the installation of up to 115 MW.
Although installed costs are averaging only $1,400/kW, the low power
purchase price is proving a major barrier to more rapid expansion.
Swedish utilities pay only 25 ore (US 4.5 cents) per kWh for wind
generation. Even with the capital incentive program, developers are
forced to find highly energetic sites to justify projects economically.
Aside from the utilities' research program, the largest project to date
is a 1.6-MW wind power plant comprised of seven Danish Vestas V27
turbines near Varberg on the west coast.
While many countries have long since abandoned multi-megawatt
turbines, Swedish utilities have not. Since 1975, the Swedish wind
program has focused almost exclusively on megawatt-size machines,
including the installation of two prototypes during the early 1980s.
In 1982 Swedish utility Sydkraft installed the 3-MW Hamilton
Standard-Karlskronavarvet turbine at Maglarp. Through 1991, the
78-meter machine generated a total of 27.7 million kWh, a record of
sorts since it exceeds the total generation of any other multi-
megawatt machine including Boeing's Mod-5B in Hawaii, which produced
24.5 million kWh from 1988 to 1992.
The Maglarp machine, one of only two such turbines ever built, was
available for operation 51% of the time from installation through
1988. Since the beginning of 1992 the turbine has operated without
further state support in regular commercial service. (The other
Hamilton Standard machine was installed in Medicine Bow, Wyo., where it
still operates.)
In 1983, Vattenfall installed a 2-MW turbine at Naesudden on the
southwest coast of Gotland. Built by what is now Kvaerner Turbin, the
75-meter machine operated fitfully until it was dismantled in 1991.
Despite the Naesudden machine's poor performance, Sweden and Germany
embarked on a joint development of a 3-MW, 80-meter design in the early
1990s based on the experience. Vattenfall and German utility
PreussenElektra in Germany contributed much of the project's $34
million cost as well as the sites. Germany's
Messerschmidt-Boelkow-Blohm (MBB) designed the blades and Kvaerner
Turbin the nacelles.
Prototypes of these new turbines, dubbed Naesudden II in Sweden and
Aeolus II in Germany, are currently undergoing tests. Naesudden II,
which was installed atop the same tower used for Naesudden I, will
operate at two constant speeds. The German version, Aeolus II, was
installed at the Jade wind plant near Wilhelmshaven this past summer.
Aeolus II will operate at speeds from 14 rpm to 21 rpm.
Although MBB has reduced the weight of the blades from the 20 tons of
the Naesudden I machine to nine tons by using carbon fiber composites
and Kvaerner Turbin has pared the weight of the nacelle from 210 tons
to 165 tons, the prototypes remain far from commercially competitive.
Sweden is currently studying another version of the Naesudden design
intended for commercial applications. If the study shows that Kvaerner
Turbin can cut the costs in half, Sweden is expected to build another
five units in the mid 1990s, possibly at Naesudden.
If this phase proves successful, Sweden could move on to installing 97
of the giant machines offshore during the late 1990s as some existing
nuclear plants begin nearing retirement.
To hedge its bets, however, Sweden is also backing Nordic Windpower's
development of a 400-kW turbine. Nordic Windpower's novel 35-meter
design uses a teetered two-blade rotor operating at variable speed.
Unlike other variable speed turbines, which rely on pitch control in
high winds, Nordic regulates the rotor's power by aerodynamic stall.
Although Sweden has successfully staved off extensive wind development
for nearly two decades, the pace of its program may accelerate.
Recently the country announced the temporary closure of five of its
twelve nuclear reactors, accounting for 25% of the country's
electricity. The action was taken after the discovery of faults in the
emergency core cooling systems of the country's boiling water reactors.
The plants are expected to eventually be restarted but the action comes
as a blow to Swedish utilities, who have debated the future of nuclear
power for more than a decade. At least two referendums have confirmed
the electorate's desire that no further plants be built and existing
plants be phased out after 2010. The closure of the five plants, even
if only briefly, could push Sweden to make the switch from nuclear to
alternative sources of electricity such as wind energy sooner than
planned.
===============================
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted, at no cost.
For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back issues
on Usenet or Bitnet, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable
energy, energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news. The electronic
edition normally runs about 10kb in length.
If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request. Please include information on your position, organization,
and reason for interest in the publication.
If the _Weekly_ is not quite for you, please pass this message on to
someone else you think might be interested. Thanks.
*******************************************************************
Tom Gray EcoNet/PeaceNet: tgray@igc
Internet/Bitnet: [email protected] UUCP: uunet!cdp!tgray
|