By David Wojick
Despite calling for rapid reduction in CO2 emissions, the left is rushing green industrialization which will dramatically increase emissions for the foreseeable future. This obvious absurdity has yet to be admitted.
On the one hand, there is growing literature on the enormous material requirements required for building huge numbers of wind and solar power generating systems. Then the growing realization that gas-fired backup will keep renewable power generation CO2 emissions high. See my https://www.cfact.org/2023/05/31/offshore-wind-may-not-reduce-co2-emissions/
Combining these two factors means CO2 emissions should rise, not fall, as green industrialization proceeds. Both factors are ignored, but both are big. The energy transition increases emissions. It is that simple.
On the material side, we are talking about what I call “supply chain emissions.” It should be obvious that rebuilding the electric power system is hugely emission intensive. We are talking about a tremendous amount of mining, processing, and construction, with lots of transportation at each step.
By way of example, let’s take one of my favorites — the huge monopiles that hold up offshore wind-generating towers. In this case, we focus on New Jersey’s ridiculous goal of adding 11,000 MW of offshore wind, up from its present level of zero wind. It is ridiculous because New Jersey already has all the generating capacity it needs. Supposedly this wind power is going to make the weather better or keep it from worsening, but that is another silly topic.
These monopiles are very big. For simplicity, let’s say a steel cylinder is 30′ in diameter and 300′ long, although some are bigger. Each weighs something like 2,500 tons. It is first driven into the seafloor, then hollowed out and backfilled with concrete.
Steel and cement-making both create a lot of CO2 emissions, and there are so-called emission factors for both. Steelmaking creates about 2 tons of CO2 per ton of steel, so just producing the raw steel in one monopile puts out 5,000 tons of CO2. This does not include making the monopile, which involves a lot of shaping, cutting, welding, etc.
There is something like 15,000 tons of concrete in a finished monopile, and the chemical emission factor is about 1,250 pounds of CO2, giving around 9,000 tons of CO2 per pile. This does not include the energy required for cooking the limestone to make cement, which requires a great deal of heat.
So, simply producing the basic materials causes about 14,000 tons of CO2 per monopile. Assuming for simplicity that the average turbine is 11 MW we need 1,000 monopiles, which works out to a whopping 14,000,000 tons of CO2 just to make the steel and concrete.
This huge number does not include energy-intensive activities like mining the iron ore and limestone or cooking the latter or the numerous transportation steps along the way from mine to final erection.
For now, the steel piles are made in Europe, most likely Spain, so they must be shipped something like 5,000 miles. Many of the giant substations, each filling a flatbed ship, come from as far away as Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore. Iron ore is itself a major ocean shipping commodity. So there will be a lot of transport emissions.
And this is just the monopiles. On top of these come the huge towers, turbines, and blade sets. The turbine assemblies alone are now up to 850 tons, including many tons of copper. Then too, there are thousands of miles of undersea power cables. Every generator is wired to a substation, which is then tied to massive power lines running back to shore. Plus, there will be a great deal of onshore grid development in order to handle all this new juice coming from new places.
This is emission-intensive industrialization on a grand scale. There will certainly be huge CO2 emissions for the next decade or more. What we need is supply chain emission analysis.
There is no way green industrialization of electric power can reduce emissions in the foreseeable future.
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/. Available for confidential research and consulting.
“Despite calling for rapid reduction in CO2 emissions, the left is rushing green industrialization which will dramatically increase emissions for the foreseeable future.”
We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
War is peace
Etc.
When these people are more than happy to sacrifice whales, birds, bats etc etc etc to save the planet, making sense is not welcome; in fact it is to be deplored.
There is a theme emerging. Destruction.
Mutilation of body and mind follows up on sacrifice of the innocent.
“these people“
“14,000 tons of CO2 per monopile”
What this arithmetic doesn’t cover is how much CO2 would be emitted by the gas generator it replaces. If the 11 MW turbines generate average 4 MW; about 35000 MWh/year, or about 700 GWh over 20 years. Gas generation of 700 GWh would emit 700000*0.37=260000 tons CO2.
A lot more than 14000.
Nick, Nick, Nick, you only include the monopile construction in your calculation. And, the gas generator is still needed for backup so not replaced. What David is calling for is a complete analysis including, mining, all phases of construction (monopiles, turbines, blades, transmission, substations, etc.), transportation, etc. without this analysis, we cannot know what the net gain/loss of co2 emissions truly is. I’m sure you don’t object to this. We don’t inadvertently increase emissions, right?
Your at 14000 chasing 260000. Factor of nearly 20. You’ll have to find a lot of extras.
Gas generators also need steel and concrete, copper etc. Gas needs drilling, pipelines, maybe LNG processing and transport.
You’re ignoring HOW MANY turbines you’ll have to build, HOW MANY TIMES you’ll have to build them (easily 3 times compared with the life of the gas plant), and the fact that YOU STILL NEED THE GAS PLANT ANYWAY, sins the lights don’t stay on without it.
I’m looking at 1 turbine and the emissions from the gas generation that would be needed to replace its lifetime output. 20 yrs is a reasonable lifetime. But do your own calc if you like.
You might want to read the linked article for a full explanation on one of the last paragraphs:
“In short adding a lot of intermittent offshore wind to the generation mix radically degrades the efficiency of the gas fired generation. The result is that CO2 emissions are not likely to be greatly reduced and can even increase”.
It won’t take “finding a lot of extras” to realize that not only are you not replacing gas turbines, you are making them far less efficient which increases costs and emissions. And, since wind turbines rarely last as long as their projected life span of 20 years, you will need to replace them far more frequently than traditional thermal plants at far greater cost.
Yes Nick let’s find all the ‘extras’ with a thorough analysis. How can you argue against this?
While we’re at it, let’s get an honest accounting of the the child/slave labor used used in China, Congo and elsewhere.
“let’s get”
Honest accounting… NOT free. This is where the argument goes.
NS response shows how a technical analysis travels down the supply chain. The cost of monitoring and controlling every step in that level of detail is huge.
“without this analysis, we cannot know what the net gain/loss of co2 emissions truly is”
as if it even matters
I agree that the 14,000 tons value is incomplete. But Dr. Wojack went from quantification to qualification as the article advanced. Since many of these tons of CO2 would be required from any energy source, what is his estimate of the final number of extra tons for that monopole?
Since one is replacing perfectly good FF and nuclear generators with unreliables, the additional wind is not needed and will just increase taxpayer and ratepayer costs.
True or no, what does this have to do with my comment?
– Angela de Marco: God, you people work just like the mob! There’s no difference.
– Regional Director Franklin: Oh, there’s a big difference, Mrs. de Marco. The mob is run by murdering, thieving, lying, cheating psychopaths. We work for the President of the United States of America.”
We are asking for work that would cost work from the kind of worker I want doing something productive.
Huh?
“How much wood could a woodchuck chuck….
Finding the total cost in all its detail is not free. If government mandates a report signed by someone qualified, then only companies that can afford someone to hire qualified people that spend their work hours writing reports about what others designed or produced. Small companies can not afford paying peope who don’t design or produce.
Is there any bloody stupid idea you won’t defend?
“If the 11 MW turbines generate average 4 MW”
A pitiful, paltry amount (and in reality probably less than 3MW); why bother with them?
..because the computer says “yes” — or more accurately the simulated climate models demand it..Yep its all based on a junk, simulations of a phenomena that cannot be simulated with any accuracy.
Some interesting fuzzy-math sleight of hand in Nick’s calculations.
David Wojick’s article estimates that each 11-MW wind turbine requires 1,000 monopiles, whose fabrication would emit 14,000 tons of CO2 each, or 14 million tons of CO2 per wind turbine. Just leave out a factor of 1,000 and everything’s hunky-dory for Nick.
If the wind turbine could produce 700 GWh of power over a 20-year lifetime (assuming it’s not destroyed by a cyclone), how much CO2 would be emitted by a gas turbine producing 700 GWh?
The heat of combustion of methane (the main compound in natural gas) is 191.376 kcal/gmol, or at 4187 J/kcal, this is 802.9 MJ/gmol. Burning 1 gmol of methane yields 1 gmol (44.01 grams) of CO2, so that the CO2 emission rate is 44.01 g / 802.9 MJ = 0.0548 g/MJ of heat.
Over the 20-year lifetime of the wind turbine, the 700 GWh of power generated by the wind turbine is equivalent to 700 * 10^9 W * 3600 s/h = 2.52 * 10^15 Joules = 2.52 * 10^9 MJ. Assuming a gas turbine to be 35% efficient, the required heat release would be 2.52(10^9)/0.35 = 7.2(10^9) MJ, for which the CO2 emissions would be
7.2(10^9) MJ * 0.0548 g CO2/MJ = 3.95(10^8) grams = 395 metric tonnes of CO2.
A huge fallacy in Nick’s argument is his use of an emission factor of 0.37 tons CO2 per MWh generated. Using the well-established stoichiometry of methane combustion, the heat of combustion from the technical literature, and a reasonable assumption of 35% efficiency for gas turbines, the actual emission factor is 395 tons CO2 / 700,000 MWh = 0.000564 tons CO2 / MWh. Nick’s emission factor is too high by a factor of over 650.
So, it takes 14 million tons of CO2 emissions to produce a wind turbine that would reduce CO2 emissions from a gas turbine by 395 tons over 20 years. This means that each wind turbine built increases the net CO2 emissions by a factor of over 35,000.
To paraphrase Nick, 14,000,000 is a lot more than 395. Building wind turbines greatly increases CO2 emissions.
But math is hard for the global-warming alarmists.
Using the lowest listed specific CO2 production for these units of 640#/MwH, per the included DOE link, and assuming an average of 4 MW of power production for 20 years, I get 640 #/MwH/(2204.62#/metric ton)*4MW*24hours/day *365.25days/year*20years, or~203.6 M metric tons of CO2 emissions. Am I making an arithmetic mistake? I checked a couple of different ways, but it’s certainly possible….
https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/articles/gas-turbines-doe-chp-technology-fact-sheet-series-fact-sheet-2016#:~:text=With%20this%20credit%2C%20CO2%20emissions,emissions%20near%202%2C000%20lbs%2FMWh.
“David Wojick’s article estimates that each 11-MW wind turbine requires 1,000 monopiles”
You are really confused here. It’s called a monopile because you have just one. David’s use of 1000 was that the NJ project was supposed to generate 11000 MW, so if each turbine produced 11 MW, you would need 1000 turbines (and 1000 monopiles).
This channels an article months ago, where you helped the WUWT author on the (non nit picky) difference between millions and billions. I watched that article for a day or 2 for other comments and/or a thank you from the author. Crickets. Per Emily Litella, “Never Mind”.
Nick, you need to read the other article linked to near the beginning:
https://www.cfact.org/2023/05/31/offshore-wind-may-not-reduce-co2-emissions/
The local power system CO2 reductions are likely to be low to none because wind intermittency greatly reduces the efficiency of the gas fired “backup” generation.
So local emissions do not go down much, if at all, while global emissions go way up. The net change is a big increase in emissions. I am surprised you missed this in my article as it is clearly stated.
Also Nick, the decrease (if any) occurs slowly over say 20 years, after construction, while the increase occurs up front during construction. So you are massively front loading the increase. This destroys the short term decrease goal.
Again, you need to just look at the broad figures, including generator emissions. The US emits about a Gigaton CO2 per year generating electricity. On your figures, for monopiles, about 1000 tons CO2/MW are emitted making them. That is for offshore; onshore construction emission is much less. The US adds about 15 GW wind per year, so that is 15 MTons per year. Compared to the 1000 Mton/year for ordinary generation, it is very small.
You probably ought to work “So local emissions do not go down much, if at all, while global emissions go way up.” into your first paragraph. Even if you write clearly, we read the words we want to read. For example people might start reading nuclear reactors or Public television and British politics into your windmill article as if those other topics were your thesis.
Poor Nick… The FACT that wind is NEVER an actual “replacement” for gas, seems to be yet another thing you are totally ignorant of. !
Nick,
a common misconception.
Wind does not replace gas generation. It continues to run, sometimes at low levels and indeed some of it connected but not feeding the grid (spinning reserve) It has to run to keep the grid stable and in so doing is less efficient than if there was no wind input to disrupt what it could do.
One advantage of Thorium Liquid salts cooled reactors is that power production can be mostly local w/o the need of those huge costly ugly transmission lines.
Yet another strike against solar panels:
Britain fires up coal plant as solar panels suffer in hot weather
This is interesting…
‘Solar panels are tested at a benchmark of 25C.’
Interesting, indeed. I’m wondering if that 25C is ambient air or panel surface temperature. I know for a fact that even on a mild, but sunny, day the surface of my shiny black car is very hot to the touch.
Neither—it is the internal solar cell temperature. In a system, silicon solar cells can easily reach 45-60°C.
Data sheet usually specifies performance vs temperature. Product designer (should) pick a part that meets the final product’s needs. Suppliers and design (should be) evaluated in prototype tests. Test performed on every individual item shipped adds cost to every individual item shipped, so test on every individual item shipped is reduced to a statistical minimum required to answer the question “does this one work like the last one?”.
Millions of clever humans have been systematically reducing cost by adding efficiency since Henry Ford. Phones seem to last about a year before breaking… but about 400M Americans can download an app for sharing photos of their fashionable bubble tea.
In other words, an engineer will say “see, we wrote it for you right here” while the salesman is not around.
not even counting the ecosystem damage caused by wind and solar installations
Many discussions are too far down in the weeds to fully inform the issues of climate and if there is a need to modify it. Certainly wind and solar are not equivalent to traditional full time generation.
Purported “green” energy is highly intermittent and requires full timed dispatchable make-up capacity and energy–for equivalency to the full time generation in our previously magnificent grid!
…(“stand-by” should be eliminated as it conotates easy, no-cost,equivalent..)
Make-up is the full time, available, stable, reliable generation needed for grid management with minimal unscheduled downtime and operation goals. Included are the stability and availability requirements in cycles, seconds, minutes, hours, weeks…based on 10 year grid operational standards.
(including the real situational effects of dirt/bugs/bird excrement/snow/rain/ice on solar panels, nighttime, clouds, and rapid wind speed/direction changes, and maintenance/failure downtimes)
So for equivalency, all wind and solar must include all the costs shown in this article AND match exactly the characteristics of full time dispatchable, natural gas, oil, coal, nuclear, or hydro generation.
All the “make-up” equipment costs with all the preferential discounts, subsidies, rebates, regulatory requirements (CO2 trading, predatory pricing..) must be included in “green” costs.
Only then can the costs and net benefits truly inform the public and its political stewards.
PS
If emissions are significant enough to potentially and significantly alter climate the conversations should always include construction and operating costs and emissions–along with the calculated climate temperature effect.
(the temperature effect likely won’t be observable…so is it real?)
Don’t worry; your masters plan on demand side management to make up for unreliables’ deficiencies.
“These monopiles are very big. For simplicity, let’s say a steel cylinder is 30′ in diameter and 300′ long, although some are bigger. Each weighs something like 2,500 tons.” I work in metres. A cylinder 1m x 90m = (about) 70m^3. Solid steel weighs less than 8 tonnes per m^3. Heavy steel pipe weighs about 350kg per metre. Have you made a couple of orders of magnitude error?
“A cylinder 1m x …”
= 39.37 inches
30′ is 30 feet or 1,181.1 inches
Let’s do the calculations in smoots where all are equally competent.
Thanks John – it’s been a while.
In fact the newest XXL monopiles, as they are called, are up to 11 metres/meters in diameter, with bigger coming.
https://www.geplus.co.uk/news/boost-for-sustainable-xxl-monopile-foundation-project-04-02-2021/#:~:text=An%20XXL%20monopile%20has%20a,1%2C000t%20to%202%2C400t.
This is because the turbines keep getting bigger. The big existing offshore wind facilities use up to 9.5 MW turbines but many US plans call for 15 MW. Bring on the XXXL monopile.
30 feet x 12 inches to the foot is 360 inches. May be different using smoots.
This will not last long. European heavy industries are no longer viable. They are niche businesses. The Chinese can land monopolies at about half the price of any European producer.
China currently produces 53% of of the world’s steel and the proportion is rising rapidly.
If existing manufacturers are not establishing their Chinese based supply chains then they are already cactus:
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/china-s-increasingly-cheap-wind-turbines-could-open-new-markets-72152297
Heavy engineering depends entirely on coal. If you cannot burn coal then you have no heavy industry.
The German supplier erecting turbines for Queensland is sourcing blades out of China. Any manufacturer that wishes to remain competitive will have to give over their technology to a Chinese based manufacturer/partner.
Indeed! This is why we need supply chain emission analysis.
2020 – 1.8 billion tonnes of raw steel produced worldwide accounting for 8% of all human CO2 emissions. China produces 960 million tonnes which is 53% of the total steel produced that year.
Calculating Chinese steel CO2 emissions per year as a percentage of total human emissions.
(53% or 8%) = 0.53*8 = 4.24%
Total UK CO2 emissions per year = 1.03%
Therefore the Chinese steel industry emits more CO2 in 3 months than the whole of the UK does in a year.
YUP! I have long said, that if you are able to build wind mills, that alone is PROOF that you do not need wind mills. It is that simple.
Another disadvantage of gas turbines for filling in gaps of renewables is their fuel consumption patterns. It requires about 40% of the full power fuel burn rate to keep a gas turbine idling and ready for quick power changes. This is one reason why small gas turbines don’t work well for cars and such. Cars and trucks spend a lot of their operating time idling at lights, stop signs and in heavy traffic and would burn up close to half of their fuel just sitting, ready to go but not going. The same is true of simple cycle gas turbine electricity generators. Someday somebody more capable than I will gather some combined cycle and simple cycle gas turbine power and fuel rate data and calculate just how much carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by a renewable system with gas turbine backup. I would not be surprised if the reduction would be very small and perhaps even zero.
Douglas Pollock has been crunching those numbers but his research is as yet unpublished. That is where I got the basis for this article. Also I have been told about several field measurement studies that got reductions from just a third of that predicted by replacement to no reduction at all.
So what we really need is accurate emission reduction estimates plus supply chain increase analysis.
Denis,
the combined cycle gas turbine plant is claimed to be about 60% efficient when running at optimum. Unfortunately they rarely run at optimum as they are doing grid balancing.
Their disadvantage is that they cannot stop and start as easily as an open cycle gas plant simply because the steam side has to be kept hot to be operable. Also thermal plants don’t really like a lot of on off operation.
Correct on all counts. A minor point:
With the contribution of PV and wind limited to 40% of hourly demand at best, and only in those areas immediately nearby an over built “green” energy production complex, it is difficult to argue that fossil-fueled and nuclear provide only backup rather than primary power. Gas fired power generation will only ever be “backup” in the damaged minds of the eco-deranged.
Yes “backup” is a deep misnomer.
Oh no. Please don’t advocate for regulation or reporting requirements. Regulations will be written b_ big companies and reporting/documentation overhead can only be supported by big companies. Regulation and reporting requirements favor bigger, slower operations and incremental change. The term “regulatory capture” doesn’t fit the situation perfectly, but the concept it describes is similar.
‘Green Industrialization Greatly Increases CO2 Emissions’
Yep: at least it is not all bad news!
Feare Ye Notte goode people..
They’ve finally cracked it:Wind farm which will help produce Irn-Bru opens
Irn-Bru = “Made from girders” doncha know
(It’s a sort of orangy-brown colour = a bit like rust. Contains a lot of CO₂ tho….)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-65889627
Keep it simple. Until the grid is green, EV’s are an environmental disaster.
Yet, they push EV’s like mad.
They also close down nuclear power plants.
They are charlatans.
It does not matter where CO2 comes from. A year ago, it was determined that water vapor molecules had been increasing about 7 times faster than CO2 molecules. Sect 2.8 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . NASA/RSS has now reported average global water vapor through Dec 2022 at https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r02_198801_202212.time_series.txt . The trend from Jan 1988 thru Dec 2022 is 1.36 % per decade so, given that average global water vapor is about 1% or 10,000 ppmv, the increase in water vapor molecules in 3.5 decades is 0.0136 * 10000 * 3.5 = 476 ppmv. From Mauna Loa data the CO2 increase in that time period is 420 – 350 = 70 ppmv. With that, water vapor molecules have been increasing 476/70 = 6.8 times faster than CO2 molecules. Thus regardless of the initial source of warming, water vapor molecules have been increasing about 7 times faster than CO2 molecules. The idea that CO2 starts the increase is ludicrous.
Description of how the water vapor measurements are made is at http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor