Talk:Wind power

Denmark and wind subsidies in general.

http://www.energy.eu/ Scroll down to Household electricity In 2012 the Danes spent just over 30 euro cents per unit of electricity. That is the most expensive electricity price in all of Europe, and over double the cost in many other countries such as Bulgaria and France. So despite Denmark's so called favorable wind resources. It appears all this talk of cheap wind is just that, a load of hot air. Boundarylayer (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Boundarylayer (talk)

You failed to examine why the price is high.. and instead are assuming that it is because of expensive energy production. And because of that you come to the wrong conclusion. The price of electricity is high in Denmark because the state taxes every kWh at the consumer level[1]. (roughly 40% of the price of electricity is tax). This is the reason that original research/coming to your own conclusions based on data is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I did examine why, taxes and levies excluded Denmark's electricity generating price is still one of the most expensive in Europe. See - http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics

Furthermore examining the Denmark reason for having to have such high taxes and levy costs, they are likely due to Wind power Subsidies, which in the USA are, Per megawatt hour, natural gas, oil and coal received 64 cents, hydropower 82 cents, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.29 and solar a whopping $775.64.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576559103573673300.html

Sincerely, Boundarylayer (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. However, contrary to what you seem to assume the Danish people certainly do not have room temperature IQs. For example, Denmark's electricity tax to pay for wind power in 2004-2008 was 0.0054 euros/kWh, but it is estimated that with spot pricing of Denmarks wind power on international markets that this was offset by an average of 0.0027 euros/kWh. In 2008 the spot pricing of the wind energy was greater than the subsidy.[2]Teapeat (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Danish people are, in actuality increasing the percentage of energy generated by wind up to 50% over the next 8 years. I think if their relatively high electricity price was due to wind power, that they certainly would have noticed, and they would not be doing this.

I can only reiterate that Wikipedia is not the place for your original research.Teapeat (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Boundarylayer. You didn't look at the figures - since your claim that "Denmark's electricity generating price is still one of the most expensive in Europe" is false and directly contradicted by the source that you give (EUSTAT). The price of Danish electricity before taxes and network cost (ie. the electricity generating price) then it is #13 of 27 in the very table you give as evidence[3] (for industrial consumers it is the 3rd lowest in Europe). If we also take the network cost into account, Danish prices are still roughly in the middle.

So No... You didn't actually check anything, since the high Danish electricity price, as i stated, entirely stems from tax and levies at the consumerlevel. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)There is a nice graph for 2009, at the top of this document that illustrates this fact rather clearly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Boundarylayer, the Wall Street Journal opinion piece article you're quoting above had its cost figures neatly compiled by the Institute for Energy Research, the kid brother of the right-wing American Energy Alliance. Those are the people who have been funded by, or as some would say, are fronts for, the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, the CATO Institute, Enron and a slew of other right-wing drill-baby-drill money-grubbers bent on lighting up their $250 cigars with $100 bills at the world's expense while their ocean drilling rigs and oil tankers are spewing out hundreds of millions of barrels of oil spills. So, yes, your credibility for using such scum bucket sources is shot, wholly unsurprising since those figures are coming from a news rag running along side of Fox News, led by what many believe is the biggest scum bucket of all, Rupert Murdoch. Hopefully he, his son and all his cronies will join Conrad Black in prison sometime soon for all the phone hacking that went on.

You, and they, are also neatly ignoring the medical and social costs of dealing with millions of diseases and deaths yearly world-wide caused by the energy sources that you, and they, advocate. Let's see what the subsidy costs look like after those calculations get done. What do you figure for an unwanted emphysema or cancer death being worth, €500,000 minimum? How about the flooding of a coastal city, €25,000,000,000? HarryZilber (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to believe you HarryZilber, it sure would be great if wind power really was as cheap as you hype it up to be, but the wall street journal's figures are in line with other sources and therefore corroborated. Moreover people have a right to know how the low carbon power sources they are supporting with subsidies compare. That is, what exactly is the value for money people are receiving. This is an encyclopedia after all, and should not be a promotional advertisement for any particular energy sector.

A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (although it should be noted that the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and biofuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/relative_energy_subsidies.pdf

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

The EIA have also catalogued the massive amount of subsidies going to wind despite it producing a tiny amount of energy. See table ES3, ES4 & ES5.

This second and third source now completely corroborates the Wall Street Journal's figures, and the order of the energy sources are exactly the same in all the sources, so despite your hotly expressed opinions against the WSJ as a source, (the units in the WSJ figures were expressed in cents/MWh and not kWh in case you were wondering), by the way, I have not looked into your right-wing conspiracy claims HarryZilber, it may very well be true, and I was going to look into it but then I found the above reference that do not appear to have any left or right-wing affiliations. Wind is getting a disproportionate amount of subsidies for the energy it generates in comparison to other low carbon power sources - Hydro and Nuclear. That is the facts jack.

I also don't know where you are coming from with assuming I want coal or fossil fuels in general, in fact you wind guys seem to be more interested in pushing fossil gas as you are presently dependent on it, to make wind appear economical, Denmark does, 70% of Denmark's electricity production comes from fossil fuels. Moreover it is intellectually dishonest to be expressing subsidies without units, as value for money should be presented, the absolute dollars given to each sector, as presented in the article, tells us less than nothing, as all the other sources produce so much more power, they deserve the higher absolute subsidy stipend.

When it comes to fossil fuels though, you should naturally add a section on the environmental and heathl costs of using each energy source, such as natural gas and coal particulate matter linked deaths and CO2 damages. Including externality costs of each energy sources, for sure is important, as these costs could also be considered something tax payers do pay for(an indirect subsidy). In comparison you should include the fact that the externality costs of Hydro, wind and nuclear power(in order of increasing externality costs) are all tiny in comparison to fossil fuels externality costs. Check out the ExternE project on each energy sources externality costs for exact figures, as they have calculated the the medical and social costs of dealing with millions of diseases and deaths yearly world-wide caused by energy sources that you brought up. They have assigned a cents/kWh figure to each energy source. Here's the EU document, look at page 35 to 37 for the cents/kWh externality cost of each energy source. http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/expoltec.pdf Yes that's right Coal and Gas cause 4-6 cent/kWh of damage(externality), and that is excluding the damage done by global warming from these sources. Incredibly right?

Kim, you apparently just pulled that 13 figure out of thin air. Look, all you have to do is look at the graph and you will see Denmark have a higher electricity generation cost than the EU average. Therefore Denmark have(even excluding the countries insane tax rate) one of the highest cost electricity generating rates in Europe. If you're above the average, that means you're one of the highest, I thought that was pretty elementary knowledge.

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Boundarylayer: Here is a bit of math help for you: An average of a number of values.. does not imply that half of those values must be above, and half below. That is the case here. If you really are too lazy to check yourself in the table i provided you - then take a ruler to the graph that you are referring to. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The document you provided is from 2009-2010, so unfortunately a bit outdated I'm afraid. Naturally yes, in respect to an Average, you are technically quite right kim, you can have, for example, one large outlier(such as Cyprus in the below graph) skew the EU average value upwards. For talks sake, if the Cypriot basic electricity price was even higher than it actually is now, say a whopping $4.00/kWh, then every single 27 EU nation could claim they generated electricity at a cost 'below the EU27 average' price, except that single Cypriot outlier.

Although in reality, when every nations basic generation price is actually scattered fairly randomly around the same small window - from 5 to 30 cents/kWh - When a country has an above average basic electricity price, it does imply that it is one of the nations with the highest rates i.e half of nations must be above and half below the average in this case. However to be more precise, I should have simply wrote above average, instead of one of the highest, as that was not entirely accurate to have written. As for the eurostat graph from 2011 it does suggest that(excluding the punitive tax rates that makes citizens in Denmark pay the highest/most expensive price for electricity in the EU27) Denmark has a slightly above average EU basic electricity rate(with it not being surprising that it is around the average rate, considering ~70% of Denmark's electricity production comes from fossil fuels and that is about the EU average.

Moreover, do you know where the equivalent eurostat EU27 2012 figures are? It seems a bit odd that we're left having to deal with data from two years ago, when things might be very different now.

In regards the subsidies edit that was reverted(remember, I never actually made a remark on Denmark's electricity rate in the article), are we all agreed upon the following sources as reliable? and are we all agreed on expressing subsidies in relative terms, and not absolute terms is the better metric to present in the article?

A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (although it should be noted that the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and biofuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/relative_energy_subsidies.pdf

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

The Energy Information Administration have also cataloged the massive amount of subsidies going to non-hydro renewable energy sector, despite it producing a relatively small amount of energy. See table ES3, ES4 & ES5.

Boundarylayer (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, i was not speaking about average (you were! Hint: #13 out of 27 countries is not an average). Secondly: Information about non-OECD countries is rather irrelevant to Denmark, since it is an OECD country. Thirdly: US subsidies is irrelevant to Denmark since Denmark is not the US. Fourthly: This discussion is not entangled with a particular revert - but instead is focusing on your original comment, which is entirely personal opinon, original research, and not in correspondance with real world data. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaken, this discussion is entangled with a particular revert, The revert you conducted on March 2nd 2013 to be precise. I expressed the subsidy rates of each energy source in relative terms: dollars per unit of energy generated, instead of the present practice in the article of displaying the subsidies in absolute terms. However this edit was entirely reverted, and HarryZilber and I were discussing the edit above. I have now provided 2 further references that largely corroborates the reference that Harry took issue with, so I ask, can the data be put back in? My edit summary comment on March 2nd was - Sleight of hand balanced, how about you show subsidies relative to the amount of energy produced, that's a far better metric than absolute quantities. Which I'm sure you'll agree with

In respect to your Fourthly - my original talk page discussion with you and other users here, was on how the Danes are charged an extremely high electricity rate, the highest in the EU27, a fact that is backed up by the real world data.] I would like to know why the Danes and Germans are taxed so much? Is it due to Feed-in tariffs?

Boundarylayer (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't just note that Denmark had high energy prices - you conflated that with a implication that it was because of wind that it was expensive. Which real world data doesn't support. No one ever disputed that Denmark has the highest electricity prices for consumers - that would be silly - since we do have those.

As for your last question: Denmark has high energy taxes (≳40%), because politically Danes think that high energy prices are an incentive to rethink energy usage/production. This has worked extremely well in the past - for instance in the 70's (during the energy crisis), when it gave an incentive for insulating houses/windows, installing thermostats, buying smaller cars etc etc., and reduced the amount of energy needed significantly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds plausible as a reason alright, but, and I recognize this data may not be freely available, but is there a break down of where each one of your taxed cents go? Does it all go into R&D to find cheaper and cleaner energy sources? As, if it instead went to line the pockets of Vestas, that would not be ideal. The incentive scheme you speak of, sounds good, but I'm wondering how could it work when you are not in such a wealthy nation, and there is Fuel poverty in your country? A problem which is sadly increasing in the EU27. Furthermore, as most people simply cannot afford to buy an electric car with the combination of high capital costs, and electricity prices. If it was given that electricity was cheap, that is, if electricity prices were cheap enough to make it worthwhile and the electricity grid was substantially free of fossil fuels to make it more ecologically sound, more people would make the switch would they not? I was recently pricing an electric car for a friend and working out how much CO2 and money they might save, and it does not look very appealing - even with the free motor tax grant. Although I convinced them to buy it anyway, simply to support the fledgling sector and the novelty factor. If I were in Denmark with the electricity rate as it is, it would simply look insane to try and convince someone to go electric. So are you not going to need to supply cheap electricity to motivate people to switch from fossil fuel cars to less polluting electric cars? Although fundamentally its just a philosophical difference of approach I suppose.

I don't mean to seem to be knocking your Governments plan, my country isn't doing much better in terms of CO2 emissions per unit of GDP and in a lot of other metrics.The nobleness of energy conservation schemes, such as helping those who can't afford new home insulation, thermostats etc is naturally something that we can both agree on, as beneficial to all.

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A list of energy tax money would be useful for this article. The Danish energy tax system is rather convoluted and old fashioned, as surplus industry heat is prohibited from replacing gas for the widespread District heating, and even wind power pays CO2 tax! Large heat pumps could easily be a source for the district heating, but are prevented by the tax system. But a hidden cause for the high energy tax (electricity as well as for oil&gas) may simply be to provide cash for the wellfare system (hospitals, social benefits +much more) - money is extracted where it can be found regardless of source, not nescessarily where it is reasonable. The cost of filling an electric car is still much lower than filling a petrol car. But now we are getting beyond the scope of Wiki Talk. TGCP (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Grid costs of renewables

The article should refer to the more recent report on grid system costs of renewables in a report from the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD: "Nuclear Energy and RenewablesÑ System Effects in Low-Carbon Electricity Systems", OECD 2012, available at http://www.oecdbookshop.org or at . You can also look at for a presentation based on the report.

This ia a cross country study using the same methodology of the grid system costs of generating technologies. It shows much higher grid system costs of wind energy than reported in the Wikipedia article, which quotes a forum from 2006 and a UK report from 2009. It is possible that the Nuclear Energy Agency Report is biased against renewables, but since this appears to be the latest paper on the subject, you should at least consider the possibility that grid costs are that high. 200.27.27.9 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Query: Should it be "Iran" or "Persia"?

The article states "The first windmills were in use in Iran at least by the 9th century". Pretty much all my friends from that part of the world (who live here in the US) prefer the name "Persia". Especially when referring to historical events.

Before I change it, I figured I'd ask around. Thanks.

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I have not visited this page before, but I strongly feel that it does not show a neutral point of view. It seems to me to have been written by people who in the main are strong advocates of wind power, who seem very keen to minimise the many real isssues/difficulties with this technology. Just one example - The section which seems desperate to claim that wind turbines cause less avian deaths than other generation technologies!!! May I make one small contribution. The section on small scale wind power makes reference to wind turbines in urban environments, and talks about wind shear and turbulence, but omits the key fact that the capacity factor that is achieveable is low, and rather unpredictable. A good reference for this is the Warwick Wind Survey which can be accessed here: http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/resources/Warwick+Wind+Trials+Final+Report+.pdf. I went to a lecture by one of the consultants who carried out this work - the general message is that it is very difficult to get good performance from small wind turbines in an urban environment. Alsos, given current knowledge, it is not possible to make a reliable prediction of the likely performance at any given urban site (As a further piece of evidence, I note that the hardware chain B&Q in the UK started selling domestic sized wind turbines a couple of years back, but gave up after a year or so, because of poor experience. They are still selling solar PV and solar water heaters). I don't know how to edit Wikipedia itself, so could someone add in the reference to the Warwick wind survey? Is there anyone out there who would like to tackle the NPOV question? DMWard (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the "Environmental effects" section. Wikipedia is built on references. In the avian case, it is a meta-analysis of 616 individual studies, so it seems very well supported. If you can find a similar thorough study to suggest otherwise, please show it here so we can compare. The economy of scale and height dependency could well be included in the Small-scale section. This article is a parent article for all wind power related articles, and as such is only intended to provide an overview - for details, see individual articles. At 120k it is 20k above the 100k soft limit, and could probably use a trim. TGCP (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious Statement in Article

This critique is in regards to the following portion of the article:

Wind is the movement of air across the surface of the Earth, affected by areas of high pressure and of low pressure. The surface of the Earth is heated unevenly by the Sun, depending on factors such as the angle of incidence of the sun's rays at the surface (which differs with latitude and time of day) and whether the land is open or covered with vegetation. Also, large bodies of water, such as the oceans, heat up and cool down slower than the land. The heat energy absorbed at the Earth's surface is transferred to the air directly above it and, as warmer air is less dense than cooler air, it rises above the cool air to form areas of high pressure and thus pressure differentials. The rotation of the Earth drags the atmosphere around with it causing turbulence. These effects combine to cause a constantly varying pattern of winds across the surface of the Earth.

1) The citation link above appears broken to me. The home page http://www.renewableuk.com/ doesn't count as a valid reference.

2) I am disputing the accuracy of the claim that "The rotation of the Earth drags the atmosphere around with it causing turbulence." This is simply untrue, although I am going to have a hard time finding a citation that specifically falsifies this statement.

3) I would like to work with the individual who made the page semi-protected to improve its quality. While I am new to Wikipedia edits, I am willing to improve this portion of the article with accurate and well-cited information.