Wind turbine & CO2

[bamboo]

Hello,

I just read an article that says:
"The first virtue of these windmills of a
new type is to generate current by emitting
very little carbon dioxide (CO2): twenty times
less than a gas-fired power plant, thirty-five times
less than a coal-fired power station. "

Which would mean that a wind turbine patented CO2!
Who can explain to me what produces this CO2?

Unless they take into account manufacturing / transport?

Have a good day,

Anthony.

[ThierrySan]

In my opinion, they confuse heat and CO2.

Can you give us the source of this article ?!

[bamboo]

In my opinion, they confuse heat and CO2.

Can you give us the source of this article ?!

I prefer to warn: it is sure like that, it is not credible as a newspaper, but they are associated with Le Monde which, even if it is partisan, is supposed to be a little serious ...
But there, I do not understand where they get their figures ...

http://www.matinplus.net/v1/Pages-Matin ... ement.aspx

Download the daily edition (19/4), go to page 11, 2nd paragraph.

[Rulian]

I flew over the newspaper you linked. Here is what I think (you will note that I work in wind power, point to take into account to judge my position).

- Journalists, including those from Le Monde, have never been screwed up to properly account for questions with technical aspects. And energy is by definition not a simple technical question.

- Matinplus talks about 7% of the world's energy supplied by nuclear power: IT'S WRONG! It is 7% of ELECTRICITY. Nuance! They made the usual amalgamation between energy and electricity. To give you an idea, electricity represents only around 20% of energy in France. It changes everything and it refers to my opinion of journalists specified in the point just before.

- They relay the old, worn argument of the rate of CO2 per kWh of electricity produced in Denmark, the capital of wind power. It's smoky. Their rate would be even higher if there were no wind turbine. Maybe their rate is high because they simply don't have a nuclear power plant. Making the link between wind turbine and CO2 is completely dishonest.

- Matinplus takes over the arguments of the big nuclear pundits (EDF / Areva), interviews the enlightened with wind of anger, and what about the players of wind power in France? SER, FEE, developers, elected officials, builders? Could no one ... Hello the objectivity of the paper.

- With regard to the CO2 of the wind kWh, I have no figure but be sure that the little counted enters in manufacturing + transport + installation + operations and displacement for maintenance.
But I find the annnocated figures very nice with hydrocarbons ... The report is surely even more to the advantage of wind power. But since they don't know the difference between energy and electricity, it's not to Matinplus that I'm going to ask for confirmation.

- it is mentioned the need to use conventional thermal power plants to balance the instability of wind turbine production: this is to underestimate the level of control that we have over wind generation, and it is also to forget massive nuclear power outages every summer during periods of high heat, which also require massive compensation in thermal power plants.

Rulian

[Alex]

Rulian, Completely agree with you!

[elephant]

super Rulian intervention.

I also noted in the article "that EDF is forced to buy very expensive wind power", that's enough, I think of explaining a lot of things .....

that said, it is obvious that we will never be able to insure everything in wind power, but, a wind turbine of 1000 euros is enough to produce a good part of family hot water without sophisticated regulation. I also think that we could imagine little by little at local level a double network: one for good, very stable current, and a second for heating applications with load shedding relay system, all connected to the large wind turbine in the village.

I also think that wind power is a fantastic opportunity for the industry, and therefore for employment, part of which is difficult to outsource.

[frog]

All those who have a thorough knowledge of a given subject regularly notice errors, approximations and misinterpretations in the articles of journalists, even honest and hardworking.

I am quite frequently questioned by these humanoids for my work and tremble every time at the end of their article ...

Conversely, I frequently see much worse errors around me or within this forum when "So-and-so remembers a vague article from two years ago in I don't remember which newspaper that said something like this about a similar subject ..."

So a little humility for everyone

[bamboo]

Well thank you all!
I thought it was weird.
I will try to write to them (if possible, not yet looked at), but maybe you have already done so!
It is still shameful that people like them pretend to know the truth and, in fact, shower us with lies ...

Grenouille, you're right, but a journalist is supposed to investigate, and therefore readers give them more credit than "so and so" ...

Anthony.

[Rulian]

I would not speak of lies from these journalists ...
It is much more accurate to say that they are wrong. They are simply next to the plate. We cannot master all the technical questions that can be addressed in daily news ... It's human.

It is up to us readers to use our discernment and not to take everything literally. (especially for news other than environment / energy where we are probably much less specialized)

[bamboo]

I would not speak of lies from these journalists ...
It is much more accurate to say that they are wrong. They are simply next to the plate. We cannot master all the technical questions that can be addressed in daily news ... It's human.

It is up to us readers to use our discernment and not to take everything literally. (especially for news other than environment / energy where we are probably much less specialized)

Yes, that's why I wanted to ask the question to the experts :-)
But this does not prevent journalists from lacking in humility: they could say that they "understood that". Well, obviously their paper would sell less well, but that would be more honest

More feasible: they could have their article reread to people who know the subject ...