Geothermal Energy & Ethanol
markjones011 at tiscali.co.uk
Thu Dec 5 01:27:49 MST 2002
> The energy produced by a wind turbine throughout its 20 year lifetime (in
> an average location) is eighty times larger than the amount of energy used
> to build, maintain, operate, dismantle, and scrapping it again.
> In other words, on average it takes only two to three months for a wind
> turbine to recover all the energy required to build and operate it.
80x sounds like a lot until you realise that natural gas extracted even from
hostile subsea enviornments like the North Sea produce 1-2 000 times the
energy invested in acquiring the energy. The windpower proponents know
perfectly what this means: that you could not convert to windpower. What you
cna do is run out of oil in an unplanned, chaotic, market-driven, war-riven
way and then provide about 2% (if you're lucky) of current world energy
supply using windpower. Look again at the facts set out for eg in the EIA's
Renewable Energy Annual. In 1999 the combined total of solar and wind were
greatly exceeded by burning agricultural and industrial wastes. Indeed, any
form of energy consumption in the entire economy was of more significance
than wind and solar combined. Once again: Solar = .0747 percent; Wind =
.0477 percent; Both = 0.1224 percent of US energy consumption.
True, windpower has been increasing, but it still accounts for less that
half a percent of energy output. And as the website you cited shows, demand
for windpower istallations is already saturated in Scandinavia. Two weeks
ago, Texas energy firm TXU, which had been investing heavily in windfarms in
the UK, went bust. The British govt has nom plans for the widescale
introduction of windpower which will never provide more than 2% of UK
electricity, to judge from the UK govt's own published plans. Windpower is
just a red herring.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism