Wind power is a complete disaster (Denmark relevant)

FP Canada ^ | 4/8/09 | Michael J. Trebilcock

[Titus-Maximus]

T here 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). Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery. Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds. Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

[Izzy Dunne]

Either they have increased their electric consumption 19%; or they have cut back on the power generation at the power plants (but not closed them.)

One of the facts that the wind-industry will not tell you is that wind can actually INCREASE the carbon output.

Why?

They cannot REPLACE a coal-fired (or nuclear, or other) plant, because they are not dependable enough.

Theerfore, unless folks are willing to live without electricity when it's not windy (hint: they're not), you have to maintain exactly the same capacity in coal-fired (or other) plants as before, to cover the demand.

But a plant operating at 95% capacity actually spits out LESS pollution than a plant operating at 50% capacity.

And obviously the efficiency goes down as the wind kicks up.

So it's not as green as the free-wind folks would like to believe.

[IamConservative]

....as the Obama House readies to deploy another $5B for us all to buy electric cars. Once again, politicians playing scientist overlook the laws of thermodynamics..

If I lived on top of a windy hill as I did in my childhood, I *might* consider a windmill for personal use to power what I could and turn my electric meter backwards the rest of the time.

[Pikachu_Dad]

AHA - THIS IS PROBABLY WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT !!!

CO2 EMISSIONS TRADING.

The 19% of power generated by Windmills would have reduced their CO2 emissions.

BUT THEN...

They went and SOLD their SAVED CO2 EMISSIONS TO SOMEONE ELSE - Who then used them to emit CO2.

GOT IT...

<<<<<<<<<<<
Guess what: these pretty windmills have no impact in reducing CO2 emissions. At least not in Europe, world leader against climate change.

This is what the German Green Party secretely acknowledges, in emails obtained by Spiegel Online.

Here is how it goes: the EU has set up this emission trading system. Heavy pollutors and energy companies can buy them. It’s supposed to be an incentive to switch to eco-friendly technologies.

But in fact, the actual amount of CO2 stays the same, no matter how many wind turbines the Europeans erect.

Not to mention the fact that in Germany, for instance - leading country in renewable energy technologies - the more companies make the switch to renewables, the cheaper CO2 certificates get. So in fact, the incentive is the other way around, giving energy companies a reason not to invest in such costly technologies with no impact.
>>>>>>>>>>

[Izzy Dunne]

Does a Nuke store energy?

No - it doesn't need to .

When demand falls, you can throttle back a nuke plant.

When demand rises, you can crank up a nuke.

Not so with wind.

[Lou L]

We have a windmill farm in NW Indiana, clearly visible from I-65, near Lafayette. I have no idea how much energy it produces, but I’ll say this: one windmill is quaint-looking; an entire windfarm takes up a huge geographic footprint, and is an eyesore. I can’t believe environmentalists go for this. Not only are they ugly, surely they kill birds and affect other wildlife.

[SJSAMPLE]

I understand that.
Being a country with a proportionally higher shoreline helps move the % up, but it’s still at 19%, which isn’t a failure FOR DENMARK, if you don’t consider the efficiency/cost of the things.

For the US, with a much greater requirement and a proportionately smaller wind availability, I don’t see it as a solution.

[Pikachu_Dad]

>>>>>> The 19% would be at peak operation. The coal power plants have to have sufficient resources to take up the slack when wind generators are not operating at capacity. Just as when the wind generated load decreases, the more reliable source has to over-produce. This causes the consumption of more coal. <<<<<<<<

Somebody has fed you a line of BULL.

[truthguy]

Costs of production and maintaining long term many forms of alternative energy systems probably results in less net energy than we might think.

You don't have to be an electrical engineer to understand some of the problems with Wind Power. Let me list just a few:

1. Wind Turbine Props are VERY expensive and highly susceptible to damage. Lots of high forces on these units and and ICE storm can completely destroy them.

2. Wind Turbines eat ball-bearings.

3. Salt Air (Denmark) wreaks havoc with any type of machinery. Ask anyone who has a boat with diesel engine about maintenance. Again tremendous maintenance cost will increase costs per kilowatt-hour.

4. Wind doesn't always blow and doesn't always blow at the right speeds. NO wind, NO power.

5. Wind Farms tend to be away from populated areas (high cost and losses in transmitting power).

6. Windmills don't produce a lot of power per unit. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (in CA) 2300 MWatt of power. Big Windmill maybe 2KWatt. Need thousands of windmills to equal one good size nuke or coal plant.

[DungeonMaster]

Show me an example of nuclear power plant output curtailment based on demand.

[SJSAMPLE]

As I’ve posted repeatedly on FR, I’ve never seen ANY of those turbines spinning.

[DungeonMaster]

This article is pure crap.

[rjsimmon]

Somebody has fed you a line of BULL.

Nope. That is they way it works. Since wind energy is not consistent, backups are essential. Coal, oil, etc. plants are that backup. When the grid picks up the loss from the wind source, they request from the coal/oil source.

[bikerman]

Windpower is not about ficticious global warming, it’s about a great way to make electricity

As long as the wind is blowing and you have some way of storing the electricity from it just like solar panels are great as long as the sun is shining and you have a way to store the juice. otherwise its an eyesore and how long before its paid for from the electric it produces?

[smokingfrog]

Wind energy can’t be stored. Seems like they should be connecting wind generators to a power grid where any excess electricity can be diverted to create hydrogen.

[Ben Ficklin]

"there's little they can do to store the energy"

A sizable amount on Denmark's windpower is stored.

It is exported to neighboring countries and used in lieu of hydropower, thus storing the windpower as hydropower.

This article by Trebilcock has been rebutted. The Danish grid operator points out the numbers Trebilcock uses, 36% for 2006, were a result low rainfall and less hydropower, not inadequacies of windpower.

[DungeonMaster]

As long as the wind is blowing and you have some way of storing the electricity from it just like solar panels are great as long as the sun is shining and you have a way to store the juice. otherwise its an eyesore and how long before its paid for from the electric it produces?

There is no need for storage, the energy is put on the grid. 7ish years including the Production Tax Credit.

[editor-surveyor]

"If 19% of the power for the country is being generated by wind, then there is clearly a large reduction in carbon footprint."

Did you mean 1.9%?

Anyway, we need a bigger carbon footprint - better for the farms.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

Wind patterns (at least in the US...I assume it is the same over there) are such that the highest wind speeds are generallyovernight

---

Do you have a source for that premise saying highest wind speeds are overnight?

It seems counterintuitive to me

[mad_as_he$$]

I think what they are trying to say is that the coal plants cannot be “decommissioned” not “turned off”. They have to be available for when the wind is low. BTW that also means they are idling which is very fuel and pollution inefficient. Starting a coal plant from a dead stop takes a long time.

[DungeonMaster]

Somebody has fed you a line of BULL.

That's for sure!