At The Register, Andrew Orlowski attended the talk and has a news article describing Steve McIntyre’s talk at the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, which was an event hosted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
McIntyre’s statement on wind power is interesting:
The entire rationale of policy in US and Europe has been to ignore what’s happening in China and India and hope that petty acts of virtuous behaviour in both countries will cure the problem,” he said. “Even if you install windmills you’re not going to change the trend of overall CO2 emissions.”
Actually, it is worse than that. As Bishop Hill reports, it turns out that windmills in the UK at net positive for CO2 emissions. He writes:
Ever since Gordon Hughes’ report noted that wind power was more likely to produce more carbon dioxide emissions than [natural] gas, I have been looking for the figures behind the claim. In the comments, someone has now posted some details that seem to meet the bill. Although these are not Hughes’ own numbers -they were submitted in evidence to Parliament by an engineer – I assume they are similar.
[A]s wind rarely produces more than 25% of its faceplate capacity it needs 75% backup – which due to the necessity of fast response times needs OCGT generation (CCGT can respond quickly but the heat-exchanger systems upon which their increased efficiency relies, cannot – so CCGT behaves like OCGT under these circumstances). CCGT produces 0.4 tonnes of CO2 per MWh, OCGT produces 0.6 tonnes. Thus 0.6 tonnes x 75% = 0.45 tonnes. Conclusion: Wind + OCGT backup produces more 0.05 tonnes of CO2 per MWh than continuous CCGT.
In case you are not familiar with the terms:
OCGT = Open Cycle Gas Turbine
- In a gas turbine, large volumes of filtered air are fed in the compressor section of the engine. In an OCGT the multistage compressor squeezes the air to from normal pressure up to 40 times atmospheric pressure depending on the type of turbine.
- Fuel is distributed to the various combustion chambers surrounding the gas turbine. This then mixes with the compressed air and ignition and combustion takes place.
- The combustion gasses expand rapidly and this energy is transmitted to the axial turbine blades which drive the rotor shaft.
- The rotor torque is transmitted to both the compressor section of the gas turbine and the external electrical generator.
In a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT), the hot exhaust gases of a gas turbine, or turbines, are used to provide all, or a portion of, the heat source for a heat exchanger (called a heat recovery steam generator) to supply a steam turbine.
So I think the time has come to stop tilting at windmills. End the subsidies that make them temporarily attractive and let shale gas step in and help solve the emissions problem as it has already been doing:
PITTSBURGH (AP) — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-co2-emissions-us-drop-20-low-174616030–finance.html
Everyone acts so surprised by this news, but I had it on WUWT over a month ago.
USA CO2 emissions may drop to 1990 levels this year
I predict that in a few years, when the subsidies run out, many wind farms will look like this one in Hawaii, now abandoned because it it too expensive to maintain:
Related, via Jo Nova:
Hydroelectricity produces 16% of the total. But all the vanity renewables bundled together make about 3.5% of total. Wind power is a major global industry but it’s only making 1.4% of total electricity. And solar is so pathetically low that it needs to be bundled with ‘tidal & wave’ power to even rate 0.1% (after rounding up). If world’s solar powered units all broke tonight, it would not dent global electricity production a jot. No one connected to a grid would notice.
UPDATE: Hans Labohm writes in with a supporting study:
Dear Anthony,
In The Netherlands Kees le Pair (Dutchman) has recently completed his
analysis on wind energy over here.
It confirms the conclusions of Hughes.
The English version of his report can be found here:
http://www.clepair.net/statlineanalyse201208.html
FYI.
Best,
Hans H.J. Labohm
I had a look at what a city like Vienna eats up per year. I found this city comes down to 40,000 GWh per year (and rising), and by international standards that’s a small city, with only 1.5 million inhabitants. Primary source for electricity is gas. For the public transport wind makes 1.5% of the energy produced.
There is simply no way in hell we can feed a city like Vienna with 40,000 GWh per year simply from wind or sun. How should that work?
My home town and the surrounding district with roughly 60,000 inhabitants still eats up 200 GWh per year, and that’s only because it’s a very rural area where most people don’t rely on electricity for heating, etc. A lot of folks still use wood, since it’s readily available. But even there, especially when considering local industry and geography… How would… I can’t wrap my mind around it. It’s not possible to feed this place with wind and solar 24/7/365.
The future of wind farms opens an important opportunity for big government. Government can move the remaining grant money from renewable energy to the arts. There can be competitions for artists who can transform dead wind farms into something attractive or, at least, not stomach turning. Poets can create work that immunizes citizens against visions of wind farms. You get the idea. In addition, many climate scientists can move into the arts which is really their natural home. /sarc off
This is a bit off topic, but does anybody have any comment on a recent claim being made by Obama campaign and news that wind energy constitutes about 20% (I also heard 25%) of Iowa’s energy production?
“USA CO2 emissions may drop to 1990 levels this year”
If the US has been hated by the new-world-orderites, they will be doubly so for this. Europe has screwed up their economy in no small way with the untotalled billions spent on electric toys and Lysenko-inspired “scientific” climate research (other socialist economic policies have done the rest – huge handouts for Greece, Italy, Spain … which were squandered supporting artificially high standards of living in countries that never gave economics any priority). The EU signed Kyoto and set to work to meet their targets by abdicating their responsibilities in favour of a Greenpeace-WWF-IPCC fantasy solution. The naivete is palpable. The irony stringent. Who would have thought that the “target” could have been met by doing the most economic thing. They villified the US for not signing and then EU emissions go up and US emissions go down – you will never be foregiven, even when you invoke a 2nd Marshall Plan and send economic missionaries there to straighten it all out.
Thank God the Conservatives are in power in Canada. The Liberals who perfected the process of sending good money after bad would have contributed billions to refinance the EU’s excesses. Harper said no – they need to straighten up their economies not shore them up. Canada, which has the best government banking policies in the world has had to take some hits for it from Europe, too.
“Edim on August 18, 2012 at 9:27 am
OK, the graph doesn’t say that and I was wrong. Any reliable data/graphs for USA energy consumption?”
Have you seen the excellent Energy Information Administration database, which is referenced from this recent article and follow up commentary on Aus/NZs Best Weblog ?
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/how-much-electricity-do-solar-and-wind-make-on-a-global-scale-answer-not-much/#more-23371
Really!!??
(Seriously, this is an ‘engineering problem’ for which there are solutions; are you totally unaware of operational DC tie lines that work over ‘great distances’? You write this continually as if you were …)
High-voltage direct current – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
Pacific DC Intertie – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie
“The Pacific DC Intertie (also called Path 65) is an electric power transmission line that transmits electricity from the Pacific Northwest to the Los Angeles area using high voltage direct current (HVDC). The line capacity is 3,100 megawatts”
.
Philip Lee:
I wondered when the ‘pumped storage’ excuse would come up, and you provided it at August 18, 2012 at 10:52 am where you say
I will not take your battery analogy literally, but I will use it as you do.
For ‘pumped storage’ to provide a store of energy equivalent to the energy stored in one AA battery, then 100 kg of water must be lifted 10 m (i.e. 220 lb of water must be lifted 33 feet).
Put another way
For ‘pumped storage’ to provide a store of energy equivalent to the energy stored in one gallon of petrol (i.e. gasoline), then 13 tons of water must be lifted a kilometre (i.e. 3,500 gallons of water must be lifted 3,280 feet).
These calculations are theoretical maxima and ignore losses in the system.
Available places for the elevated reservoirs to provide pumped storage are limited. And the relatively low ability of ‘pumped storage’ to store energy means this technology has limited ability to ‘smooth’ output from wind turbines. For example, the UK’s entire ‘pumped storage’ capacity can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours before dropping to 1060MW, and the provision stops (because the reservoirs empty) after 22 hours. There is no wind when a stationary high or low pressure region exists over the UK, and such highs and lows typically stay over the UK for several days.
‘Pumped storage’ is a very economic method to meet ‘peak demand’. Its ability to ‘smooth’ output from windpower is so limited that it is effectively useless for this purpose.
Richard
The move to greater dependence on ‘renewable’ power sources in Germany is destabilising their power grid ever so slightly. The consequences of these minor perturbations in the power supply are enormous and expensive.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/instability-in-power-grid-comes-at-high-cost-for-german-industry-a-850419.html
Mr. Sowell & Lee both seem to miss the point in their comments. The historical record is one of increasing capacity and reliability in power systems by building ever larger grids (to share loads and sources) and specialized plants (baseload, peaking) . A wind or solar plant might have value as a peaking plant in some venues, but is not appropriate for baseload as the output is unavailable for frequent extended intervals. Similarly, solar and wind plants should not be considered as reliable peaking sources, they require backup plants should clouds or calms reduce the available power. Battery, pumped hydro, molten salt, and other energy storage devices cannot compete economically with building a conventional power plant. Once they can, they will.
@ur momisugly Roger Sowell it must be true then that the grid loads were constant before about 1940. Surely, no coal, nor oil, nor gas-fired steam plant could accomplish the task.
Yes, it might be true. You forgot that hydropower can balance the grid.
What does this extra CO2 cost the tax-paying consumer?
John A says:
August 18, 2012 at 9:13 am
….Close down the IPCC before science itself is reputationally trashed for a generation.
_________________________
I think it is too late because the problem of scientific fraud has metatasized to other fields.
Top Science Scandals of 2011
A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
Red wine researcher flagged for fake data: A University of Connecticut researcher… falsified his data in more than 100 instances, and nearly a dozen scientific journals are being warned of the potential problems after publishing his studies…
NETHERLANDS: Dean may face data fraud charges… fabricated data published in at least 30 scientific publications, … Some 35 co-authors are implicated in the publications,… In 14 out of 21 PhD theses where Stapel was a supervisor, the theses were written using data that was allegedly fabricated by him.
And a website devoted to science fraud:
Retraction Watch
Roger Sowel:
I see you are still selling misinformation about windpower. For example, your post at August 18, 2012 at 10:10 am says in total.
You know your post is pure pro-wind propaganda because I repeatedly explained the matter to you recently on the WUWT thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/wind-power-not-coming-through-for-california-power-alert-issued-by-the-caiso/
e.g. in my post at August 10, 2012 at 4:25 am I wrote
And at August 10, 2012 at 10:28 am I wrote
Richard
Bill H says:
August 18, 2012 at 9:29 am
… so the wind farm thing is pointless except for small single home uses where a hybrid system can be employed. and even that is questionable..
________________________________
Wind power is fine for pumping water or grinding grain where there is no other source of power AND the indigenous population can build them out of native materials and also repair them without outside direction.
JohnC says:
August 18, 2012 at 11:54 am
Solar can help with peaking up to a point. Wind, never. Wind is a complete wild card, and is at least as likely to not be there when it’s needed most as the other way around. To help with peaking, there would have to be some reason to believe that there’s more wind during the day as at night. There isn’t.
_Jim:
re your fatuous comment at August 18, 2012 at 11:37 am.
Yes, of course I was aware of that. But line losses exist especially when the HV AC distribution system must be used to re-route power because of a failure of a power plant or the wires from it.
Simply, my comment was correct.
I suspect you knew that, too. And when you choose to make fatuous and (deliberately?) misleading comments such as your post to me then perhaps you would put your full name to them.
Richard
richardscourtney responded to Philip Lee:
Let’s take is a bit further for those who wish to jump on the battery mantra.
Golden Valley Electric Association in Alaska installed a high capacity battery system in order to deal with short outages until the local generating system could be brought online. According to their website, it can provide “27 megawatts of power for 15 minutes.” Also, they state that it they use 13,760 liquid electrolyte-filled Ni-Cad cells with a total BESS weight – 1,500 tons.
The battery rack is quite impressive.
http://www.gvea.com/energy/bess
Philip Lee says:
August 18, 2012 at 10:52 am
The discussion re CO2 seems pretty superficial in assuming gas turbine backup. A more efficient backup (if nuclear was unavailable) might involve some form of stored energy such a pumped hydro facility….
_____________________
I have suggested that for small facilities but it still does not address the energy density problem.
SEE: Pump Up the Storage: Do The MATH
Also of interest: Economics of Nuclear Power and Solar Panels Don’t Work. And No One Knows.
There is also this The Real Costs of Alternative Energy
What is very interesting is the plug for “Clean Gas”
Shifting us to gas has been the main reason for the whole CAGW scam. It is why BP, Shell and Enron and WWF were in on it from the beginning funding CRU and pushing for IPCC. See my comment on the money behind the scam in my other comment. That is not to say that Enron, BP and Shell were not positioned to take advantage of the windpower and solar subsidies too but they knew from the start they were not going to work long term so gas would be the “Compromise”
@ur momisugly Richardscourtney,
From you, who are almost completely ignorant about energy, engineering, and thermodynamics, that is laughable.
Are you truly a consultant to UK policy-makers on energy matters? Perhaps I should reveal to them your outstanding comment on an earlier thread at WUWT, where you assert that wind-generated power violates the first Law of thermodynamics.
You are indeed a laughingstock. I laugh at you, and derisively.
My information on wind power generation is firmly grounded in facts. Yours, apparently is based on a dream world where thermodynamics does not exist.
_Jim
“The Pacific DC Intertie (also called Path 65) is an electric power transmission line that transmits electricity from the Pacific Northwest to the Los Angeles area using high voltage direct current (HVDC). The line capacity is 3,100 megawatts”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well yes, but that is a technique that is in general of use when transporting electricity from a single large generation point to a single large consumption point. Manitoba Hydro for example does the same from Churchill to Winnipeg. But there are two important issues to consider:
1. Transporting electricity via DC is a way to REDUCE line losses, it doesn’t eliminate them.
2. In the case of wind power, this technique would be of little use. Wind mills being dispersed rather than central, the costs of building in a DC transport network would easily exceed the amount saved in line losses.
That said, I do agree that moving energy from where it is to where it needs to be is largely an engineering problem. IT can be solved economicaly provided that the power source choices are predicated on the most practical available for any given project. Wind power just doesn’t fit that bill.
The view in the article is optimistic. Here in Central North America the wind can cut out completely at times. This requires 100% backup by another generation method. The much quoted 75% backup is simply a myth. It cannot be done if you wish reliability close to 100%.
See here:
http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/chapter-3-1-powering-ontario/
That article will provide you with links to the original data at IESO and links to current data so you can confirm the drop outs. Ontario and the American mid west will give similar results in wind power I would think.
Here in Ontario, IESO simply ignores the wind power output when scheduling the electrical generators. There is at this time no known scheduling system that will give reliable power without watt-for-watt coverage of the wind turbines — and yes I do suspect Solar is the same.
This is simply false:
“McIntyre’s statement on wind power is interesting:
The entire rationale of policy in US and Europe has been to ignore what’s happening in China and India and hope that petty acts of virtuous behaviour in both countries will cure the problem,” he said. “Even if you install windmills you’re not going to change the trend of overall CO2 emissions.”
Well, Muller has been giving his Physics for future presidents lectures for ever, and you can pick any of them on YT, and he explicitly stresses that what the president (sic! – are you reading this, Barack? Bush couldn’t read, so he is excused, naturally) needs to know is that NO MATTER WHAT “we” (i.e. the west) are doing in terms of CO2, if China does not pull along, all our efforts will achieve is delay global warming by TWO years, and you can rubbish that, there is no utility in that. So every US president for at least a decade had POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE of this, and there is no way arguing their asses out of this, as Muller is/was (?) their science advisor, of course. Make a T-shirt out of this and send it to your member of congress, there you go.
Roger Sowell:
I am outraged by your slander at August 18, 2012 at 1:01 pm
You say of me
I have not made any such comment on WUWT or anywhere else.
RETRACT AND APOLOGISE.
Richard
The reason that the USA’s CO2 emissions are reducing, is the same as why the UK’s emissions reduced – it is de-industrialising.
This is the problem with Green dreams. If you make power expensive, then industry will relocate to China, where it will double its emissions. Thus overall, every wind farm in the West doubles the amount of CO2 that the previous generating equipment used to output.
.
Moderators:
On reflection, I am disappointed at your not having snipped the slanderous posting from Roger Sowell. The entire post is offensive innuendo and untrue based on a stated falsehood.
At very least I would have expected a citation would be required for the falsehood if it were not to be snipped.
Indeed, in light of the fact that Sowell was shown – by me and others – to have provided a series of misleading and plain wrong assertions supporting windpower in the recent thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/wind-power-not-coming-through-for-california-power-alert-issued-by-the-caiso/
I would have anticipated he would have been subject to careful moderation in this thread.
Richard
[Reply: WUWT moderation is done with a light touch. So long as commenters abide by site Policy, they can express their opinions, whether they are right or wrong. Other commenters are always free to disagree with them if they like. ~dbs, mod.]