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
steve:
At August 20, 2012 at 2:49 am you say:
Sorry, but they do need to operate. The reasons for this have been explained by me and others in this thread. Perhaps the simplest reason to understand is that it takes days to boil the water, to superheat the resulting steam, and to get all the components of a power station up to temperature and operating in a stable manner. If this is hard to understand then try to boil a kettle in an instant.
I fail to understand how people can convince themselves it is possible within a few hours to switch on and off a power station that uses steam turbines.
Richard
No doubt, but you missed the point: If in arguing against wind power, or any other Alarmist ‘solution’ (like banning coal plants) you concede that anthropogenic CO2 is bad, even “for the sake of argument,” then you have effectively lost the argument.
/Mr Lynn
Richard:
since you did not like the web site I linked to above here are some relevant links without the need to visit.
http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/tech_docs/en/downloads/ger3574g.pdf
Fast starting and loading is characteristic of STAG combined-cycle generation systems. This enables them to operate in mid-range, with daily start peaking service as well as baseload.
Typically, STAG systems can achieve full load within one hour during a hot start and within approximately three hours for a cold start.
Hopefully, country wide calm can be predicted more than 3 hours ahead?
From the House Of Lords.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19507.htm
102. As the amount of wind generation rises, the potential short-term change in wind output will also increase, and National Grid will have to hold more reserve to cope with this increase. The company told us that if renewables provided 40% of electricity generation—the share the company believes would be needed to meet the EU’s 2020 energy target—its total short-term reserve requirements would jump to between 7 and 10 GW. Most of this would be standing rather than spinning reserves. This would add £500 million to £1 billion to the annual cost of these reserves—known as balancing costs—which are now around £300 million a year (Q 293). This is equivalent to around 0.3 to 0.7 pence per kWh of renewable output.
sergeiMK:
Thankyou for your post at August 20, 2012 at 5:02 am. Yes, I covered the issues of gas plant above.
I am incredulous of the 3 hour start up claim but – for sake of argument – I will accept it at present.
Perhaps you would care to explain why the public should have to pay (as your post reports) the additional
in addition to the cost of the windpower they are needed to support?
Richard
SergeiMK says:
August 19, 2012 at 3:49 pm
It shows that the daily change in power provided by the national grid is varying by up to 15 GW – this is NORMAL.
Yes..and it’s highly predicable as well.
See figure 35 here.
http://site.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/tech_docs/en/downloads/ger3574g.pdf
A nice efficient combined cycle gas plant running at less then 40% capacity needs 40% more fuel per output KWh then if it were running at 100% of capacity.
Mr Lynn;
If in arguing against wind power, or any other Alarmist ‘solution’ (like banning coal plants) you concede that anthropogenic CO2 is bad, even “for the sake of argument,” then you have effectively lost the argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nonsense. They propose wind power as a means of reducing CO2. It doesn’t. End of argument,
At 20% of windpower penetration into the Netherlands energy system, the net benefit of windpower projects becomes negative, i.e. more fossil fuel is consumed than if no wind projects were operating (the Netherlands report cited). What this says is that at current efficiencies, the 20% is the upper limit of usefulness (in reducing fossil fuel usage). It doesn’t say that the cost of energy with windpower is equal to or less than the cost of energy without windpower. The costs of windpower, however, are also determined by the efficiency of windpower and the cost of production, installation and maintenance.
If windpower is only 23% effective over an annual period, then one could say that the Netherlands needs to have 4X as much faceplate capacity as peak demand. You don’t have to produce electricity to the grid if there is not enough demand (including transferred, foreign demand). There might not be enough wind for that many wind turbines, or you may realise that there are periods in which, nationwide, there is not enough wind for actual demand, so conventional sources of electricity production would have to exist. But you could achieve close to 100% of your electricity production from windpower in theory (exluding the above maximum potential issues). But at some undeclared cost.
That is what I get out of this report. The net negative at >20% penetration has to do with resultant inefficiencies in the other 80%, not in the efficiencies of the 20% windpower. If the ratio were reversed, that fossil fuel contributed 20%, the inefficiencies would be more about costs involved in having them sit idle most of the time. The inefficiencies of cost (energy invested in creation and implementation) of the 4X demand capacity would have to be factored in (amortized over 15 or so years), but we are talking of societal cost really, not business profit type cost in switching to a green energy source.
The cost comparison needs to be between operating (including replacement) costs of 4X demand capacity (perhaps less in time). We do not have to pay less for power, but it is competitively better to do so, and every dollar spent on energy is a dollar not spent on something else, like a latte. The only non-disruptive way to ‘go wind’ is if you can drop the cost per produced calorie of windpower in a full-cycle scenario to 23% or lower of that of coal or natural gas (in the Netherlands). All other ways will change how we direct our personal wealth and cause (at present) undesired societal changes.
All eco-green energy solutions are theoretically viable. Studies such as this give us guidelines as to what is required of the green solutions to effect no change, or the change that would result in their widespread use.
Very useful for those who wish to be practical and helpful on both sides of the debate.
Maybe, if wind power is the only issue, and there are no other arguments the greenies like (it’s “cleaner,” etc.). Otherwise, it’s “wack-a-mole”: we can use ‘batteries’, or solar combined with wind, or maybe even that nasty nuclear stuff for backup. One way or another, it comes back to reducing CO2 as the raison d’etre. The overriding point is: CO2 is not a problem. So we don’t need a solution of any kind.
/Mr Lynn
M Courtney says at August 20, 2012 at 3:16 am
Matt:
As you know, I agree what you say. And I note that this thread is about the UK situation. So it could be argued that your post is all that needs to be said about the subject.
However, WUWT is not a UK site so the more general points (i.e. those listed by Mr Lynn) are also worthy of discussion in this world-wide forum.
Dad
I await release of the text of McIntyre’s presentation, to see how he actually positions himself and what he actually recommends regarding the IPCC reports and the reality of CO2 emissions in China and India where they want the benefits of modern industrial society.
Reading Orlowski’s August 17 article, recognizing the difficulty of summarizing a measured presentation, it seems that McIntyre is saying these things:
– politicians are constrained by the IPCC, even though it’s work is of bad quality (I guess because it is a UN body, though we know how hopeless the UN is – even its head is getting fed up with its inability to protect people from war).
– politicians are playing do-gooder games instead of making substantive efforts
– analyses can be kept simple
– an “engineering-grade” review of a climate model should be funded
– funding for solid work might be obtained by stopping spending on bad and ineffective programs
Certainly McIntyre focuses on the science, including the effect of such behaviour as hiding data and denying blunders like using data upside down.
I doubt he’ll go as far as http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/04/kareiva_new_environmentalism_essay/ “Get rid of hippies, save the planet”
steve says:
August 19, 2012 at 7:20 am
” The blades are so heavy they must be rotated USING ENERGY if their is no wind.”
you honestly think wind companies rotate wind turbines using grid electricity if there is no wind to rotate them?
_____________________________
Yes. Metal will deform underload and just the weight of an unsupported rod/propeller will cause torque. I have certainly seen lots of examples.
Article also lists several other consumption of grid electric that is not even metered.
I am really surprised I would have to explain that BTW.
steve says:
August 19, 2012 at 7:51 am
as for how much energy a wind turbine produces and how much it consumes in manufacture…
wind turbines cost $1.2million to $2.6 million per MW installed. let’s call it £1million per MW.
http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost
That cost is the energy, wages, accountants etc…. over 20 years, 40 million kWh.
_______________________________
First as I showed in the above comment the Wind turbines USE power and that power is not metered so we do not know how much. Second you are not taking into account the cost of maintenance. Third you are assuming they will all run for the allotted twenty years.
The Kamaoa Wind Farm consisted of thirty-seven 250 kW wind turbines with an operationally typical total peak output of 7.5 MW. As of 2006 the turbines were falling into disrepair, and they were finally shut down on August 15, 2006. The wind Farnm began in 1987 and the final turbine toppled this year. The scrap metal was shipped off to China. Also outraged conservationists sued America’s ‘deadliest’ wind farm [Kamaoa] four years ago, as a result, it has agreed to grind to a halt for four months every year to avoid causing more carnage during the migration season… if a turbine’s owner had walked away from his investment or gone bankrupt, it was sometimes the hapless farmer or rancher who owned the land who had to foot the huge clean up bill…
I rather have nuclear.
Age of nuclear reactors:
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/images/npp-by-age.gif
Decommissioning starts after 25/35 years (extended to over 40 years for some)
The mass of reactors are all 24 to 32 years old.
in 10 to 20 years these will need decommissioning.
Where will they throw the junk?
How much will it cost?
Who will attend the radioactive junk for the required number of decades?
Who will pay?
[adapted from my 2009 comment]
Here is an excellent report from Germany. E.On Netz is (probably still) the largest wind power generator in the world.
E.On Netz Wind Power Report 2005, Germany
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
Capacity Factor was ~20% (” The average feed-in over the year was 1,295MW, around one fifth of the average installed wind power capacity over the year”).
Perhaps more important than Capacity Factor is Substitution Factor, ~8% in 2005 and dropping to 4% by 2020 (this is “an objective measure of the extent to which wind farms are able to replace traditional power stations”).
Because wind does not blow all the time, you need almost 100% conventional power station backup for installed wind power.
In conclusion:
Wind power does not require “75% backup” or “4 times backup” – when wind power forms a significant component of grid generating capacity, it requires almost 100% backup from conventional power sources.
That is why wind power requires huge life-of-project subsidies and why it is fundamentally uneconomic.
Pumped storage is not a solution, except perhaps in the few parts of the world where hydro power is significant, and where additional pumped storage is available that is not already dedicated to other uses.
When wind power is significant, it can dangerously destabilize the entire electrical grid – see the example below from Christmas 2004 in Germany.
****************************************
EXCERPTS from
E.On Netz Wind Power Report 2005, Germany
formerly at http://www.eon-netz.com/…/EON_Netz_Windreport2005
FIGURE 5 shows the annual curve of wind power feed-in in the E.ON control area for 2004, from which it is possible to derive the wind power feed-in during the past year:
1. The highest wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid was just above 6,000MW for a brief period, or put another way the feed-in was around 85% of the installed wind power capacity at the time.
2. The average feed-in over the year was 1,295MW, around one fifth of the average installed wind power capacity over the year.
3. Over half of the year, the wind power feed-in was less than 14% of the average installed wind power capacity over the year.
The feed-in capacity can change frequently within a few hours. This is shown in FIGURE 6, which reproduces the course of wind power feedin during the Christmas week from 20 to 26 December 2004.
Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only 10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW.
Handling such significant differences in feed-in levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.
__________
In order to also guarantee reliable electricity supplies when wind farms produce little or no power, e.g. during periods of calm or storm-related shutdowns, traditional power station capacities must be available as a reserve. This means that wind farms can only replace traditional power station capacities to a limited degree.
An objective measure of the extent to which wind farms are able to replace traditional power stations, is the contribution towards guaranteed capacity which they make within an existing power station portfolio. Approximately this capacity may be dispensed within a traditional power station portfolio, without thereby prejudicing the level of supply reliability.
In 2004 two major German studies investigated the size of contribution that wind farms make towards guaranteed capacity. Both studies separately came to virtually identical conclusions, that wind energy currently contributes to the secure production capacity of the system, by providing 8% of its installed capacity. As wind power capacity rises, the lower availability of the wind farms determines the reliability of the system as a whole to an ever increasing extent. Consequently the greater reliability of traditional power stations becomes increasingly eclipsed.
As a result, the relative contribution of wind power to the guaranteed capacity of our supply system up to the year 2020 will fall continuously to around 4% (FIGURE 7).
In concrete terms, this means that in 2020, with a forecast wind power capacity of over 48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of traditional power production can be replaced by these wind farms.
*****************
Nope. You don’t get advance notice, notwithstanding claims of forecasters. And no other generator type can ramp fast enough. And the CCGT turbines are effectively operating in OC mode when forced to respond quickly (what would you do with rapidly varying surplus heat output, anyway?)
As the Dutch study says, wind is “a black hole money pit”.
sergeiMK:
Your post at August 21, 2012 at 4:41 am says in total
Please explain what relevance any of your post has to the use of windpower.
Failing that, then perhaps you will forgive those who interpret your post as a troll comment intended to avoid discussion of the thread’s topic and, therefore, they decide ‘to not feed the troll’.
Richard
It was just a response to: Gail Combs says: August 20, 2012 at 5:18 pm
… I rather have nuclear.
—————-
Rather than waste this posts pixels here is an interesting page:
http://www.claverton-energy.com/didcot-a-coal-fired-power-station-and-potential-impact-of-large-wind-energy-on-maintenance-costs-of-two-shifting-power-stations.html
Station efficiency is 35% net, at base load, and this takes into account the ancillary power of about 100MW which is needed to run the coal mills and fans.
To cover black start conditions the station has four 27 MW Rolls Royce Avons. These can be at full load in less than 5 min ( just over 2 minutes is possible). They can also be used for peak lopping. Fuel is kerosene
For most of its life the station has been used for two shifting and sometimes for triple and quadruple shifting. In the early 2000s , Didcot A had 720 starts in one year, and over 400 in another year. After an overnight shut down the station takes 3.5 to 4.0 hours to reach full load. From a cold start it is three days.
… In terms of load following, the load change on each unit is 5MW/minute.The minimum reasonably stable load on each 500 MW unit is 265MW.
http://www.claverton-energy.com/wind-turbine-kw-input-when-the-wind-isnt-blowing-maximum-output-capacity-annual-load-factor-and-the.html
Required power in still air is about 1% of power pruduced with wind blowing
This compares to 10% continuous losses with Didcot
sergeiMK:
Thankyou for your answer to me at August 21, 2012 at 9:43 am.
I am especially appreciative of your honesty: i.e. you post I queried has no relevance at all.
Richard