There's nothing like going back to the actual data to expose the truth!For years, it's been an article of faith among advocates of renewables that increased use of wind energy can provide a cost-effective method of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The reality: wind energy's carbon dioxide-cutting benefits are vastly overstated. Furthermore, if wind energy does help reduce carbon emissions, those reductions are too expensive to be used on any kind of scale.
. . .
Porter Bennett and Brannin McBee, analyzed actual emissions data from electric generation plants located in four regions . . . Those four system operators serve about 110 million customers, or about one-third of the U.S. population.
. . .
Their results show that the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and other wind boosters have vastly overstated wind's ability to cut sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. Indeed, the study found that in some regions of the country, like California, using wind energy doesn't reduce sulfur dioxide emissions at all. But the most important conclusion from the study is that wind energy is not "a cost-effective solution for reducing carbon dioxide if carbon is valued at less than $33 per ton.
. . .
Low natural gas prices [!!!], the economic downturn, and uncertainty about the continuation of federal subsidies have left the wind industry in tatters.
. . .
But if wind energy doesn't significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then critics can easily challenge the industry's hefty subsidies
. . .
If those fat subsidies go away, then the U.S. wind sector will be stopped dead in its tracks. And for consumers, that should be welcome news.
. . .
The wind energy business is the electric sector's equivalent of the corn ethanol scam: it's an over-subsidized industry that depends wholly on taxpayer dollars to remain solvent while providing an inferior product to consumers that does little, if anything, to reduce our need for hydrocarbons or cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Huge US study slashes windmill emission cut claims
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
An Inspector Calls
Huge US study slashes windmill emission cut claims
http://www.forbes.com/2011/07/19/wind-e ... tner=email
I looked through the article. The main argument is that windfarms have less effect in reducing carbon emissions in areas of the US that already use a lot of low carbon energy
wow. who'd have thought it!
the article admits that where a state is heavily reliant on coal, the carbon emissions saved is even greater than claimed.
you can spin all you like my friend. the facts are shining through!
wow. who'd have thought it!
the article admits that where a state is heavily reliant on coal, the carbon emissions saved is even greater than claimed.
you can spin all you like my friend. the facts are shining through!
-
An Inspector Calls
Rubbish
The results against the coal generation example highlight the honesty of the data interpretation, rather than any spin.
The only worthwhile, positive result for wind generation in the whole article was the case where wind replaces a lot of coal generation. Now it's well known that coal is dirtier than gas. Against hydro, the savings of wind are minimal. What a surprise, as you say. But against gas, the wind savings of CO2 are also pathetic.
So an obvious conclusion is that if the UK dashed for gas (a far cheaper option than wind), we'd get more or less the same CO2 savings as expensive wind. And we'd save (a) the capital cost of installing windmills, and (b) any large scale extension of the grid because the gas stations could be sited where the existing coal stations are.
Yup, the facts really are shining through pal.
The results against the coal generation example highlight the honesty of the data interpretation, rather than any spin.
The only worthwhile, positive result for wind generation in the whole article was the case where wind replaces a lot of coal generation. Now it's well known that coal is dirtier than gas. Against hydro, the savings of wind are minimal. What a surprise, as you say. But against gas, the wind savings of CO2 are also pathetic.
So an obvious conclusion is that if the UK dashed for gas (a far cheaper option than wind), we'd get more or less the same CO2 savings as expensive wind. And we'd save (a) the capital cost of installing windmills, and (b) any large scale extension of the grid because the gas stations could be sited where the existing coal stations are.
Yup, the facts really are shining through pal.
Well....the analysis shows that the savings aginst gas were lower than claimed. Is it because they are looking at the average carbon savings? Sure, it could be expected that savings against gas are lower than the average. While, savings against coal are higher than the average.
Makes sense to me at least....
What's your plan for what we do when the gas runs out, anyway???
Makes sense to me at least....
What's your plan for what we do when the gas runs out, anyway???
-
An Inspector Calls
I've been given the full paper.
The CO2 savings of wind aren't just 'lower' when operated in a gas supplied grid, they're practically non existent. This happens because fossil fuel plant is having to cycle to compensate for wind variability and intermittency and the FF plant has lower efficiency when operating in such a way.
Yes they're looking at average CO2 savings. At times when the wind generators are sailing along they'll be cutting emissions. If they did that all the time, they'd be great. But they don't. In the American case, they only generate on average about 42 % of the time. (Stuart Young's analysis shows our fleet to be generating less than 30 % of the time, so the results will be even worse). So when the wind generation pack ups, with no control over when that will be, the grid has to fire up gas generation. And to cope, you also have to run gas plant part loaded. And in those modes the gas stations have reduced efficiency (and also increased maintenance costs).
And, of course, if the CO2 emission cuts for wind generation in a gas grid are zero, or close to zero, if follows immediately that the fossil fuel saving is also zero, or close to zero.
Thus, if you want to cut CO2 emissions and fossil fuel imports, then it's equally valid to buid either a gas fleet or a wind fleet. But since your wind fleet will need gas support, and gas stations are vastly cheaper to build than wind, then why not just build the gas stations?
There's nothing new in this paper. Eaxctly the same results were reported for Denmark sometime ago. It's just a pity Chris Huhne hasn't grasped these points yet.
As for plans when the gas runs out, hopefully by then we'll have built nukes (fission or fusion).
The CO2 savings of wind aren't just 'lower' when operated in a gas supplied grid, they're practically non existent. This happens because fossil fuel plant is having to cycle to compensate for wind variability and intermittency and the FF plant has lower efficiency when operating in such a way.
Yes they're looking at average CO2 savings. At times when the wind generators are sailing along they'll be cutting emissions. If they did that all the time, they'd be great. But they don't. In the American case, they only generate on average about 42 % of the time. (Stuart Young's analysis shows our fleet to be generating less than 30 % of the time, so the results will be even worse). So when the wind generation pack ups, with no control over when that will be, the grid has to fire up gas generation. And to cope, you also have to run gas plant part loaded. And in those modes the gas stations have reduced efficiency (and also increased maintenance costs).
And, of course, if the CO2 emission cuts for wind generation in a gas grid are zero, or close to zero, if follows immediately that the fossil fuel saving is also zero, or close to zero.
Thus, if you want to cut CO2 emissions and fossil fuel imports, then it's equally valid to buid either a gas fleet or a wind fleet. But since your wind fleet will need gas support, and gas stations are vastly cheaper to build than wind, then why not just build the gas stations?
There's nothing new in this paper. Eaxctly the same results were reported for Denmark sometime ago. It's just a pity Chris Huhne hasn't grasped these points yet.
As for plans when the gas runs out, hopefully by then we'll have built nukes (fission or fusion).
AFAIK, we are not planning on doing it that way in the UK!
Is the report really based on actual practice in the USA, or what they think happens in the industry?
Because its an old myth that wind turbines are backed by spinning reserve. All the information I have looked at says its standing reserve that the National Grid expects to use. And the reserve is the same that we have to have anyway, to be ready if one of your beloved nukes has a glitch.
If you put your faith in nukes, well we discussed that one already! I don't agree with you on that one - on either economic or environmental grounds. Even the French are not agreeing with you on that one now!
Is the report really based on actual practice in the USA, or what they think happens in the industry?
Because its an old myth that wind turbines are backed by spinning reserve. All the information I have looked at says its standing reserve that the National Grid expects to use. And the reserve is the same that we have to have anyway, to be ready if one of your beloved nukes has a glitch.
If you put your faith in nukes, well we discussed that one already! I don't agree with you on that one - on either economic or environmental grounds. Even the French are not agreeing with you on that one now!
-
An Inspector Calls
I believe we are proposing a mix of gas and wind (to coin a phrase); that's why there's a proposal for the reintroduction of capacity payments to reward gas plants serving on part load and reserve duties.
The study is based almost entirely on data captured post hoc. It's what actually happened. It's not a model, but reality. The same applies to the Denamrk reports.
Wind will have to be supported by both standing and spinning reserve.
I don't know where you get the idea that France is departing from nuclear. They've made a small move towards about an eventual 3 % wind, but the remaining generation will be nuclear (~80 %), hydro (~10 %) and FF (~5 %). That's why they're engaged in a universal programme to extend the life of every nuke from 40 years to 60 years.
The study is based almost entirely on data captured post hoc. It's what actually happened. It's not a model, but reality. The same applies to the Denamrk reports.
Wind will have to be supported by both standing and spinning reserve.
I don't know where you get the idea that France is departing from nuclear. They've made a small move towards about an eventual 3 % wind, but the remaining generation will be nuclear (~80 %), hydro (~10 %) and FF (~5 %). That's why they're engaged in a universal programme to extend the life of every nuke from 40 years to 60 years.
-
kenneal - lagger
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14290
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
Personally, I don't give a sh*t about CO2 savings. We have an increasing and increasingly unaffordable balance of payments deficit much of which is caused by our increasing imports of fuel as the North Sea depletes. It costs us money we haven't got to import gas while wind comes free. Look at what is happening to Greece. Gas prices will only ever increase. What happens to the price of wind?
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
-
biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
I would have to look at this report myself in detail before forming a proper opinion on its validity. Do you have a link Inspector?
If the industry decides that some extra spinning reserve is really necessary to help balance wind, who am I to argue. Thankyou Inspector for confirming that standing reserve is also part of the picture! If National Grid say that 40% renewables has negigible additional "backup" costs, then I don't imagine the "backup" involves much extra carbon emissions or energy use.
Along with the CCC/government plans, I think gas/wind/other renewables is the short term best option (maybe with some nuclear if you really insist. Whatever we do, the first thing is to stop burning coal.
Long term, of course the idea is to move away from gas too, or at least have gas with CCS. (If, there is any gas left to burn). And rely on renewables and all the solutions we previously discussed for supply/demand management.
Latest reports are that there is talk in France of reducing to ~60% nuclear with the rest from renewables. The majority of the French population are now against. Nuclear fission is no longer on the march, and fusion still not certain to be developed. (However, you may be interested to know that FoE are in favour of research into thorium nukes!)
If the industry decides that some extra spinning reserve is really necessary to help balance wind, who am I to argue. Thankyou Inspector for confirming that standing reserve is also part of the picture! If National Grid say that 40% renewables has negigible additional "backup" costs, then I don't imagine the "backup" involves much extra carbon emissions or energy use.
Along with the CCC/government plans, I think gas/wind/other renewables is the short term best option (maybe with some nuclear if you really insist. Whatever we do, the first thing is to stop burning coal.
Long term, of course the idea is to move away from gas too, or at least have gas with CCS. (If, there is any gas left to burn). And rely on renewables and all the solutions we previously discussed for supply/demand management.
Latest reports are that there is talk in France of reducing to ~60% nuclear with the rest from renewables. The majority of the French population are now against. Nuclear fission is no longer on the march, and fusion still not certain to be developed. (However, you may be interested to know that FoE are in favour of research into thorium nukes!)
-
An Inspector Calls
Neither do I.kenneal wrote:Personally, I don't give a sh*t about CO2 savings.
And I also care about our import bill for energy.kenneal wrote:We have an increasing and increasingly unaffordable balance of payments deficit much of which is caused by our increasing imports of fuel as the North Sea depletes. It costs us money we haven't got to import gas while wind comes free. Look at what is happening to Greece. Gas prices will only ever increase. What happens to the price of wind?
But if this study (which is the tip of an iceberg of similar reports) shows no CO2 savings from wind, then obviously there's no fuel import saving either - how can there be?
That being the case, wind energy is a pure irrelevance - a waste of time.
Extracts from other studies:
“The aim [of this study] is to show that the fuel economy and emissions reduction in the power systems consisting mainly of thermal power plants are not proportional with the electricity production of wind turbines. Participation of thermal power plants in the compensation of fluctuating production of windmills eliminates a major part of the expected positive effect of wind energy.” – Liik, O. R. (2003). Estimation of real emissions reduction caused by wind generators. International Energy Workshop
“There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).” Trebilcock, M. (2009). Speaking Truth to Wind Power. CD Howe Institute
“Wind energy easily costs more than it yields, not only in monetary terms, but also in non-sustainable energy use and thus it will easily increase rather than decrease CO2 emissions.” Pair, K. D. (2009, 12 18). Hidden fuel costs of wind generated electricity. http://www.windwatch.org/documents/hidd ... ectricity/
-
An Inspector Calls
Ah! The peer-review cosh beloved of warmists.
I doubt it, it's not that sort of environment. Neither have any of the claims of the AWEA or the BWEA. But the data is public, the analysis has been published, make up your own mind. Same goes for the Stuart Young paper - it's a simple enough analysis, the data is public (I have a copy of his data - it's in the public domain).
By the way, sheltering behind comforting statements from NGT along the lines of "If National Grid say that 40% renewables has negigible additional "backup" costs, then I don't imagine the "backup" involves much extra carbon emissions or energy use." is completely misguided. (And I bet you can't support that statement anyway).
NGT have no responsibility for security of supply (and neither does anyone else these days). If you ask them to connect a windmill on Rockall, they'll say they can - it's not in their interests to refuse because they can pass on the cost, suitably loaded with a profit margin, to the customer. The greater their asset stock, the more money they make.
The government, through Ofgem, ask NGT to manage auxillary services. They do this by paying them a fixed sum for the service every year - ten years ago it was £250m pa. If NGT come in under this budget, they keep the balance - and vice versa. Now if the burden of auxillary services goes up to cater for wind, which it will, they'll come back for a bigger pot. They'll still make their cut, and the bigger the source pot, the bigger their cut.
NGT are not in the business of protecting us from high prices, nor are they in any way our advocates for lower electricity costs
I doubt it, it's not that sort of environment. Neither have any of the claims of the AWEA or the BWEA. But the data is public, the analysis has been published, make up your own mind. Same goes for the Stuart Young paper - it's a simple enough analysis, the data is public (I have a copy of his data - it's in the public domain).
By the way, sheltering behind comforting statements from NGT along the lines of "If National Grid say that 40% renewables has negigible additional "backup" costs, then I don't imagine the "backup" involves much extra carbon emissions or energy use." is completely misguided. (And I bet you can't support that statement anyway).
NGT have no responsibility for security of supply (and neither does anyone else these days). If you ask them to connect a windmill on Rockall, they'll say they can - it's not in their interests to refuse because they can pass on the cost, suitably loaded with a profit margin, to the customer. The greater their asset stock, the more money they make.
The government, through Ofgem, ask NGT to manage auxillary services. They do this by paying them a fixed sum for the service every year - ten years ago it was £250m pa. If NGT come in under this budget, they keep the balance - and vice versa. Now if the burden of auxillary services goes up to cater for wind, which it will, they'll come back for a bigger pot. They'll still make their cut, and the bigger the source pot, the bigger their cut.
NGT are not in the business of protecting us from high prices, nor are they in any way our advocates for lower electricity costs
Well, Inspector its a fair enough question. I have a scientific background and am not that impressed by quotes from a website like "windwatch.org". I find that the data in these kinds of reports is ok, but what is also important in the report is the discussion, conclusions and surrounding publicity, which are rather open to interpretation!
You do make the statement that "no CO2 savings from wind" but this is refuted by the very study you started this thread with!
I was speculating a bit concerning the NG costs relating to energy costs, but that is a reasonable thing to do on first principles (and after all, its just an internet forum!). If what you explain is correct, how you define "cost" depends on how you look at it. I am thinking of "overall cost to UK plc". Usually, money = energy = carbon emissions. So if NG say the costs are not going to be much more, I would assume they mean "costs to UK plc" rather than "the costs we charge you".
Anyway, the background info you provide here is all good to know, thanks! However, to me its clear that if we are using substantial standing reserve, then it cannot be that the CO2 savings of wind turbines reduced. And eventually we won't have to rely on gas and other fossil sources for our backup (which won't be needed anything like as much as you claim).
You do make the statement that "no CO2 savings from wind" but this is refuted by the very study you started this thread with!
I was speculating a bit concerning the NG costs relating to energy costs, but that is a reasonable thing to do on first principles (and after all, its just an internet forum!). If what you explain is correct, how you define "cost" depends on how you look at it. I am thinking of "overall cost to UK plc". Usually, money = energy = carbon emissions. So if NG say the costs are not going to be much more, I would assume they mean "costs to UK plc" rather than "the costs we charge you".
Anyway, the background info you provide here is all good to know, thanks! However, to me its clear that if we are using substantial standing reserve, then it cannot be that the CO2 savings of wind turbines reduced. And eventually we won't have to rely on gas and other fossil sources for our backup (which won't be needed anything like as much as you claim).