I think he will find, that Bin Laden, being a Saudi, got / gets most his funding from rich Saudis.

Of course he was originally funded to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.

Ironically, the reason Al Quaeda is fighting the west, is to get American troops out of the sacred lands of Saudi Arabia.

Why are they there? Well – to protect Americas oil supplies of course.

Regards

Gary Bloke.

NIGEL AND FRED STARR – IN ESSENCE I AGREE WITH YOU THAT BUYING GAS FROM RUSSIA IS QUITE A RISKY PPROPOSITION – BUT WHAT I BELEIVE I HAVE SHOWN IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT CZISCH PROPOSAL IN DETAIL, THE RISK OF BLACKMAIL OR SABOTAGE ARE MUCH MUCH LOWER – THE TWO CASES ARE SIMPLY NOT COMPARABLE.

Dave,

I am in favour of the building CSP in North Africa for a number of reasons. BUT CZISCH SHOWS THAT AT THE MOMENT WIND IS A MUCH BETTER BET.
However, I am sorry to say that the points made in this counter-argument are variously irrelevant, specious, immoral or just plain wrong.
DISAGREE – I DO NOT SEE THAT YOU HAVE ADVANCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION ABOVE..
1. The counter-argument constantly refers to North African wind.. let’s at least discuss the main power source we are talking about, which is surely CSP on the whole?
ACCORDING TO CZISCH, AND THE PREVOIUS NOTE FROM MARK BARRETT – AT THE MOMENT, WIND IS FAR CHEAPER THAN CSP – CSP SHOULD BE SUPPORTED AS IT MAY GET CHEAPER BUT IT CERTAINLY ISN’T AT THE MOMENT.
2. 9 months (or even 9 years) coal stocks would be largely irrelevant in terms of immediately meeting demand if a significant amount of supply was cut off. WHY IRRELEVANT? Coal-fired power cannot ramp up instantaneously. YES WE KNOW THAT, BUT IT DOESN’T NEED TO RAMP UP INSTANTANEOUSLY – VARIOUS EXISTING METHODS CAN SHED LOAD WHILE FOSSIL IS RAMPING UP. ITS MOST UNLIKELY TO LOSE A LARGE PORTION OF CZISCH’S IMPORT ANYWAY SINCE ONLY 42% IS IMPORTED AND THAT IS NOT JUST FROM A SINGLE LINK, BUT 10 OTHERS WITH SIGNIFICANT DUPLICATION. European-wide hydro would be of assistance but, again, capacity might be insufficient depending on the size of the resource we would be importing from North Africa. WE ONLY NEED THE HYDRO BACK UP / LOAD SHEDDING / FAST START DIESELS, FOR A SHORT PERIOD – HOURS WHILST WARMED COAL AND GAS STATIONS START UP So, in order to to use hydro back-up as an argument we need to be specific about exactly how much power we are talking about importing from North Africa: how many lines, of what capacity, from which country? WELL THAT IS UNDERSTOOD AND ALL COVERED IN CZISCH’S PAPER WHERE HE HAS MODELLED WHAT YOU ARE TALING ABOUT Diversification of supply with many lines from multiple countries is a better security of supply counter-argument. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT CZISCH SAYS PLEASE READ HIS PAPERS.
3. Comparing power imports to oil or gas imports is ridiculous. The latter two can be stored, the former cannot. Employing such a schoolboy argument merely makes CSP exponents (of which I am one) look stupid. THEY WEREN’T BEING COMPARED AS EQUALS MERELY POINTING OUT THAT WE ALREADY RELY ON HUGE IMPORTS, SO THERE IS NO ARGUMENT IN PRINCIPLE AGAINST ENERGY IMPORTS. NO ONE SAID THAT ELECTRICITY CAN BE STORED – IT DOESN’T NEED TO BE BECAUSE YOU CAN SHED LOAD FOR A SHORT PERIOD (AS WE ALREADY DO NOW), AND RESTART FOSSIL STATIONS IN A FEW HOURS, IF WARMED (LOW ENERGY USE).
4. Can we try to occupy the moral middle ground at the very least, please? Saying that security of supply will be ensured because “they” need our money to buy guns is repugnant. I DON’T MAKE THE POLITICAL REALITIES OR NECESSARILLY SUPPORT THEM – THE ARGUMENT WAS TO COUNTER THOSE WHO SAID THAT MALIGN PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO TAKE OVER THE SUPPLIES THEN HOLD US TO RANSOM – BUT AS IS SHOWN THIS IS SIMPLY NOT A REALISTIC THREAT. SIMPLY BECAUSE I POINT THAT OUT, YOU CANNOT THEN ASSUME THAT I SUPPORT ANYONES IMMMORAL BEHAVOUR – YOU SEEM UNAWARE THAT WE SELL HUGE AMOUNTS OF ARMS TO SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES SOME WOULD SAY ARE IMMORAL – E.G. HAWK TRAINERS TO VARIOUS GENOCIDAL REGIMES – DOESN’T MEAN I SUPPORT THEM In any case, let’s identify who “they” might be… who is to say who the guns would be used on? Would it be acceptable for us to buy CSP power from Sudan if the money could be used to buy guns to commit genocide in Darfur? WELL YOUR CAR HAS PETROL IN IT SOME OF WHICH WILL COME FROM NIGERIA WHERE THE LOCALS SUFFER GENOCIDE AT THE HANDS OF THE LOCAL EUROPEAN OIL COMPANY. SO TOO DOES MY CAR, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN I SUPPORT THEM.

NO DOUBT YOU BUY STUFF FROM CHINA A LOT OF WHICH IS MADE FROM OIL OBTAINED FROM SUDAN. And what if “they” are Al Qaeda, and the money buys nuclear, biological or chemical weaponry for use on non-native populations….. ? WASN’T BIN LADEN A SAUDI, AND FUNDED FROM THE SAME COUNTRY WE GET OIL FROM?
5. With regard to the wires, you appear to be assuming that only governments or “warlords” would have the ability to cut us off. How invulnerable do you think a relatively small diameter cable is? It is not the governments are “warlords” we should be concerned about, more the afore-mentioned Al-Qaeda (or their ilk) who would find it very easy to cut off the lines with a very small amount of explosive. AS POINTED OUT, THESE LINES ARE DUPLICATED, AND WE HAVE HOME BASED BACK UP. IF WE PAID A DECENT PRICE TO THE LOCALS THEY WOULD DEPLOY THERE ARMY TO PROTECT THE LINES, AS THE SAUDIS AND THE US GOVERNMENT SPENDS A FORTUNE ON PROTECTING VULNERABLE OIL INSTALLATIONS.
IT ONLY TAKES A FEW DAYS/ WEEK TO REBUILT AND RESTRING A LARGE TOWER.
ANY CASE, THEY COULD JUST AS EASILY BLOW UP TOWERS IN THIS COUNTRY (AND DON’T) OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN EUROPE – WHY DO IT IN A DESERT WHERE YOU WOULD BE HIGHLY VISIBLE?
6. Counter-blackmail argument. Let me understand this. We pay for and build the infrastructure (multiple billion investment) so that North African countries can harness a free energy source to sell us…. and somehow we have the ability to counter-blackmail them? NO YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THIS POINT. SOME PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT BAD PEOPLE WOULD TAKE OVER THE WIND FARMS AND THEN BLACK MAIL US.
I HAVE MERELY POINTED OUT THAT THIS WON’T WORK SINCE WE WILL MERELY SWITCH BACK TO FOSSIL TILL THEY GET TIRED OF THE LOSS OF CASH. OR WE WILL INVADE INSTALL A SUITABLE REGIME – AS IN AFGHANISTAN / IRAQ, ETC Their risk is simply opportunity lost, they have no skin in the game at all, OF COURSE THEY DO – THEY WANT THE REVENUE FROM THE ASSETTS no investment to cover, no capex, no opex…. in fact they could simply build their own energy intensive businesses and use the power themselves. THAT’S RIDICULOUS – IT TAKES YEAR TO BUILD AN ENERGY INTENSIVE BUSINESS – WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANY MALIGN PEOPLE, WHY TOOK OVER The ASSETS NOT WANT TO CONTINUE EARNING CASH FROM THEM? DID THE SAUDIS OR IRANIANS STOP SENDING THE OIL WHEN THEY NATIONALISED “OUR ASSETS”
7. Hoarding. Somewhat kills the argument made in your own point two about “precedent”. NOT AT ALL Do you think the recent Russia/Ukraine gas situation was not a problem? WELL IT WASN’T A PROBLEM FOR MOST OF US – A FEW PEOPLE GOT COLD IN BULGARIA WHO DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH STORAGE TO RIDE THE BLACKMAIL OUT.In the UK we are but a few cold days away from a huge gas supply problem as a result of Russia shutting down the pipes for a couple of weeks. AGAIN YOU DON’T GET IT. THE RUSSIANS COULD HOARD THE STUFF AND SELL IT LATER AT A HIGHER PRICE….BUT YOU CAN’T HOARD ELECTRICITY – IF A MALIGN POWER TURNED THE STUFF OFF, WE WOULD JUST SWITCH TO COAL AND GAS TILL THEY GOT FED UP NOT HAVING THE CASH (AS THE RUSSIANS DID – GAZPROM IS BASICALLY BANKRUPT)
In my opinion, we would be better off not trying to make counter-arguments if these are really the best we can come up with. WELL I DON’T THINK YOU HAVE SHOWN YOU UNDERSTOOD THE ARGUMENTS WHICH WERE MEANT TO COUNTER SOME FAIRLY ODD ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY OTHER PEOPLE, NOT ME.

I AGREE WITH YOU, WE ARE VULNERABLE TO RUSSIA CUTTING OF OUR GAS SUPPLY, BUT THE ESSENCE OF MY PIECE WAS TO SHOW THAT BUYING POWER FORM WIND FARMS DISTRIBUTED AROUND EUROPE IS NOT AT ALL COMPARALBE TO THE VERY REAL RISKS WE ARE RUNNNG FROM CONTINUING TO IMPORT GAS FROM RUSSIA AND FOSSIL FUELS FROM ELSWHERE.

I HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE COMMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF MY BELIEF THAT YOUR CRIICISMS ARE BASED ON MISUNDERSTANDING PREVOUS WRITINGS, AND I ALSO THINK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS COVERED IN CZISCH’S PAPERS.

REGARDS DAVE A

Sorry to be so negative.
regards,
Nigel
Comment made on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm e

Comment made on January 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pm e

Well done!

By the way, there are not “30% biomass” in my base case scenario. In

Low Cost but Totally Renewable Electricity Supply for a Huge Supply Area
– a European/Trans-European Example –
http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEuropElSup_revised_for_AKE_2006.pdf

I wrote:

“Biomass and existing hydroelectric power plants provide most of the backup requirements within the supply area, in which the individual regions are strongly interconnected via HVDC transmission lines.”

In fact this does not tell exactly how much is produced from Biomass and from hydropower. The figures are:

18% of the el. production is from biomass
14.7% of the el. production is from existing hydropower
1.5% of the el. production is from solar thermal power
66% of the el. production is from wind

There are further arguments:

Security of supply with intrinsic redundancy:

In the base case scenario about 42% of the electricity generated is transmitted over the HVDC system between the regions within the supply area. Measured against the total electricity costs the cost of the transmission system amounts to 7% of which the main part of 5% is contributed by the transmission lines and cables. HVDC transmission has a higher intrinsic system stability than AC lines. Furthermore the transmission system of the base case scenario is highly redundant due to the fact that the thermal limit of the overhead transmission lines is about twice the rated power and due to the fact that between almost all regions two or more systems are designed to be built parallel. But nevertheless if further redundancy was seen as desirable this could be relatively inexpensively achieved. A somewhat extreme idea would be to erect two whole systems of transmission lines in parallel. This would mean that the costs of transmission lines and cables would double but at the same time the losses would decrease because of the doubled cross-section and thus the overall cost increase would only be about 3% ensuring a degree of immunity against faults and manipulation, which is by far higher than stipulated for today’s systems.
Security of supply by diversification:
Obviously it is cheapest to produce renewable electricity at the sites with the highest average production. But the best sites are not found everywhere, their potential is limited just as the number of countries where they are found. Therefore, to go for the cheapest solution brings in some dependency. But if one also takes into account sites which provide a lower average production the potential of renewable production and the number of countries where these sites are found increase very rapidly. Simultaneously the costs of electricity only increase relatively slow, just about reciprocally proportional with the average production. Therefore the situation is totally different from the situation in the field of fossil fuels. Here the potential as well as the number of countries producing decline with the exploitation of the finite potential. At the end this leads to increasing dependency and price explosions while with techno/economic learning the costs of renewable energy declines even if worse sites are used in order to gain diversification.

Best,

Gregor

dave andrews schrieb:

Hi Gregor – could you have a look at this please?
http://www.claverton-energy.com/europe-should-rely-on-power-imports-from-africa-and-the-middle-east-is-completely-barmy-assertion-challenged.html

And the comment below.

Thanks

Dave Andrews

Dear Dave,

I think you miss the point that I also keep making.

The important thing is the build the renewables first in each of the EU countries, instead of talking about long distance grids.

The other point I also keep making is that a huge intercontinetal network like the one proposed by Gregor is also of considerable benefit to fossil and nuclear power…… Both the French, Germans and Danes already make use of European networks to dump “surplus power” in surrounding countries, as you yourself have commented.

Please remember tha the National Grid was built after we had power stations….not before.

Fred