Germans plan to build 2,000 offshore windmills
Amid rocketing oil prices, the German government has proposed a law to increase output of renewable energy as part of a long-waited environmental package and plans to construct 2,000 offshore windmills by 2030.
The German government wants to build up to 30 offshore windfarms in a bid to meet its renewable energy targets, Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee said in an interview published Sunday.
Tiefensee told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that the windfarms would be built in the Baltic and North seas and said some 2,000 windmills should soon be producing 11,000 megawatts of electricity.
The government is aiming to obtain "25,000 megawatts of energy from windfarms by 2030", Tiefensee said.
"The rise in the oil price has made this all the more pressing and the interest from investors shows that it is economically viable," he added.
The first windfarm will go up off Borkum island in the North Sea later this year, according Welt am Sonntag.
Earlier this year, the French energy giant Areva announced that it would sell windmills to the German renewable energy company Prokon Nord to enable it to build a windfarm near Borkum.
Germany's Bundestag or lower house of parliament passed a law last month aimed at increasing the amount of power generated by renewable energy sources like wind or solar power to 30 percent from the current 14 percent by 2020.
Wind energy currently makes up seven percent of the nation's energy consumption.
The new law was part of a long-awaited package aimed at fighting climate change agreed by Chancellor Angela Merkel's left-right coalition government.
The government has agreed to honour a decision to close the country's 17 nuclear power plants by 2020 but remains divided over the issue.
Merkel insists that a nuclear phase-out would hinder efforts to slash Germany's dependency on greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuels.
But Tiefensee, a member of Merkel's Social Democrat coalition partners, said that investing in windfarms was better than keeping the nuclear plants running.
"We believe in renewable energy and not in nuclear energy."
No, I was correct on the other thread in asserting that the largest wind turbines yet installed on a large scale basis were 1.5MW maximum power. old euriope posted information about new design 5 and 7 MW turbines being installed in offshore applications in the Baltic and possibly in the Irish Sea -- however these are very recent, and new, innovations.
Germany is heavily invested for political reasons in the rapid deployment of wind turbines, and I believe they are likely to achieve 20% of total electrical power generation within a few years. This is being driven by political forces there that wish to see the demolition of their nuclear power stations that today produce about 40% of their electrical power. Their problem is that even their most optimistic projections for wind power can't hope to replace the nuclear component in any reasonable time - even with very heavy government subsidies for the wind turbines. The public will soon feel the economic impact of the more expensive new sources and the political issue appears quite uncertain.
Here the situation is very different. With fewer subsidies wind generation is still less than 3% of total output, and, given the "environmental" concerns expressed by the liberal elite who summer on Cape Cod, it appears that implementation of offshore large wind turbines is likely to be very slow - even with the government subsidies that may be enacted. A similar story could be told for solar. Improvements in both technologies will likely continue, however we are at best looking at several decades before they can be major contributors.
You identified yourself as favoring reduced demand for energy as the primary solution. Short of a sudden major reduction in the population, how do you propose to force this on an unwilling public? Regulation?? taxation?? A government-managed economy?? Perhaps a police state??
No, I was correct on the other thread in asserting that the largest wind turbines yet installed on a large scale basis were 1.5MW maximum power.
Again revel, your info appears to quote dollars, not percent profit, so it is pretty meaningless. Also, if you want proof about non producing areas of current leases, go talk to the geologists. I am sure if they thought they were very hot potential, they would drill there. I am sure all businesses wish to ignore their current best customers so they are not interested in richer customers in order to expand sales? I don't think so. That is just basic business principles that you are arguing against, revel.
Exxon Mobil, the largest domestic company, is only the 14th largest oil company worldwide in terms of oil reserves, etc.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020589.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/OilChart9.php
revel, you made the claim about profits, not me. You need to show the profits are too high, not in dollars, but in comparison to dollars spent or invested. Besides, regardless of what profits they make, unless there is price fixing involved, then it doesn't matter anyway.
georgeob1 wrote:No, I was correct on the other thread in asserting that the largest wind turbines yet installed on a large scale basis were 1.5MW maximum power.
Well, george, if your intent is to compare the latest conceptual innovation for conventional plants with (say) a 30 year old wind farm, then I would suggest you are being deceptive.
:wink:
Oh, catch your breath before you start hyperventilating, George. I think that plenty of reduction in energy usage can be accomplished through simply asking people to do so, and emphasizing the importance of doing so. I do not believe the public is as unwilling to save energy as you do. It does not require huge sacrifice on anyone's part to make a difference; simple things like turning off lights and driving a little bit slower or less will not only help our energy problem, but also save them money, personally. Not exactly a hard sell. Efficiency gains in electronic devices and various aspects of home building will also help
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oh, catch your breath before you start hyperventilating, George. I think that plenty of reduction in energy usage can be accomplished through simply asking people to do so, and emphasizing the importance of doing so. I do not believe the public is as unwilling to save energy as you do. It does not require huge sacrifice on anyone's part to make a difference; simple things like turning off lights and driving a little bit slower or less will not only help our energy problem, but also save them money, personally. Not exactly a hard sell. Efficiency gains in electronic devices and various aspects of home building will also help
Perhaps so. However the results to date do not support your stated position that this could or should be or become the principal means by which we reduce dependence on imports and fossil fuels generally. I can see persuasion accomplishing a 10% or so reduction, but nothing more. So far the data suggests an even smaller figure would be more accurate. Even in economic terms demand appears to resist even very large cost increases. Hard then to believe persuasion could do more.
If one is of the opinion (as I am) that NOTHING is going to provide a short-term energy solution for our country besides conservation and reductions in usage, the only strategy which makes sense to move forward with is to throw our energies into developing alternative power sources as quick as possible - such as, say, those large wind generators which were discussed in the other thread, which have progressed in technology far faster then it appears you had thought they had.
I firmly believe that a significant part of our scientific and engineering advancements have come about due to innovation and research which was sponsored by our government, in many cases in partnership with private enterprise. We have been successful in the past, to the point where it provided true strategic advances over other nations which we still enjoy today. I see no reason why we cannot do so today.
Cycloptichorn
I think most of the advancement in this country was without government, and because of the freedom from government. Government had a need for advancement, particularly during wartime, which spurred the progress, but most of it has been due to innovation by free enterprise, such as the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, etc. And think of all the computer guys, Bill Gates, Hewlett and Packard, Steve Jobs, etc. And much or most of the government spurring progress was done with contracted companies to do it for them.
Perhaps the Manhatten project is an exception, but progress comes with urgency. Financial gain and necessity brings urgency to a task, and World War II brought urgency through necessity in order to survive. Under normal circumstances however, the government just does not have the drive to do what private enterprise can bring to a task.
And right now, the price of energy is bringing a heightened sense of urgency and necessity to innovation, and there is no doubt in my mind that great advancements will result if the government does not hinder the process.
Oh, I edit this post to add this to the list of great advancements by private enterprise, the oil business, probably one of the greatest, if not THE greatest advancement of the 20th Century, which allowed us to harness oil and natural gas to fuel the modern world and much of how we live now in this modern world. That and electricity, Thomas Edison, etc. etc. etc.
If you can't figure out for yourself how much gov't money was spent on creating the infrastructure to support the oil and electricity industries, there's not much anyone can do for ya, Okie. Seriously. Think for a second before you write stuff.
Cycloptichorn
All cyclops has to do is look around the world and see which countries are progressing the best, and historically it has been those countries driven by free enterprise innovation and progress, not countries dominated and operated solely by government.
okie wrote:All cyclops has to do is look around the world and see which countries are progressing the best, and historically it has been those countries driven by free enterprise innovation and progress, not countries dominated and operated solely by government.
And nobody is suggesting that the gov't dominate or operate innovation or progress; in fact, if you look at what I suggested, the government basically sponsors and pays for research which is run by or in concert with various companies and corporations. I don't have a problem with those companies holding patents on what is created (I'm not a fan of that system, but it works well for us at this time).
George, I would add that the petroleum industry would never, ever have risen to it's current prominence without the creation and maintenance of the Interstate Highway system; and the decision to focus money on the continuation of the current system, rather then build up our rail transportation, as other countries have done. I'm not arguing with this decision, merely pointing out that there are massive amounts of money spent which directly support the continuation of a system which supports oil industry in America.
Cycloptichorn
Quote:George, I would add that the petroleum industry would never, ever have risen to it's current prominence without the creation and maintenance of the Interstate Highway system; and the decision to focus money on the continuation of the current system, rather then build up our rail transportation, as other countries have done. I'm not arguing with this decision, merely pointing out that there are massive amounts of money spent which directly support the continuation of a system which supports oil industry in America.
Cycloptichorn
The petroleum industry would be alive and well without Interstate highways. By the way, it was a Republican, good old Ike, that did that. Also, how many millions or billions have been thrown at AmTrak, with miserable results. The country is simply too spread out to utilize a rail system very well. By the way, with all the gas taxes collected, we should have something to show for it in roads, don't you think?
