Posted on 12/16/2009 12:08:35 PM PST by 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at network.nationalpost.com ...
That $0.15 per kwh for Denmark makes no sense - mine in Massachusetts is $0.19 and we have a pretty good Municipal P&L - or so they tell me. I cannot believe Canada’s is that low. Is there a standard connect charge that needs to be spread across actual usage?
Although it's 19% of production it only covers 10-14% of actual demand. Wind power is highly variable and you need backup power to cover times of low wind, which is why those fossil fuel plants are still there.
But the real hidden flaw in the system is that a lot of the slack is covered by power imported from Norway, Sweden Germany in times of lean wind. Of course in the good times Denmark can export Wind to those countries.
But the Danes havent repealed the Law of Supply and Demand, so they not only have the highest cost power (wind) competing with the lowest (hydro), but the times they have surplus power their customers also have the same (Germany has wind power too you know), so the export price has to be reduced to make the other countries accept Danish Wind.
At times this export price is negative. The Danes have to pay other countries to take Danish power.
In Florida the “fuel” portion of our electric bill is 6.2 cents KWH.
The “nonfuel” portion is 5.8 cents KWH.
Not sure if the author is comparing canadian apples to danish oranges here.
Though I would not be surprised to see the Danish “fuel” portion of their electric bill be 15 cents KWH.
There is a need for storage. The grid’s power needs are not consistent.
A windfarm in TX or OK makes power when it can. Sometimes the power is negatively priced, but still produced because the gov’t subsidies make it profitable to make electricity nobody needs.
A windfarm in TX or OK makes power when it can. Sometimes the power is negatively priced, but still produced because the gov’t subsidies make it profitable to make electricity nobody needs.
Wind power is usually given a priority on the Grid. If the wind is blowing some other source doesn't get on. Wind penetration is not so great that it can supply all the power on any grid where it is connected so your statement doesn't make sense to me. There is never a time when all the windturbines in Texas could supply all of the power being used by Dallas.
Nothing new here; Oil/gas burning electricity generating infrastructure needs are still there and in a best world underutilized. Underutilized implies higher rate structure.
So wind power means higher rates being charged by the traditional suppliers of electricity. No Win!
Long distance power lines are a great way to heat the environment.
But think you've got it bad, my state leads Australia in installed wind power, yah for us.
Except the backup is an electricity pipe running halfway across Australia to the coal fired plans on the east coast.
And here's the kicker. Days high demand (mid summer) are usually days of low wind. Now that extra coal electricity needs to be pushed down an electricity pipe that's already heated and sagging by the sun. So the load is cut back.
The article claims, ‘not a single power plant was shutdown’.
So how is that possible...
To understand how it is possible, you have to understand how the electrical system works. 19% of the kwH delivered may have been from wind, but the wind is not a steady reliable producer. For instance, in one part of the day, wind may be providing 30 or 40% of the total demand, but then the wind can slow or even stop entirely, and demand must be met from other sources.
Conventional steam plants, be they coal, gas, oil or biofuel, can not be switched on and off like a light switch. They have to be ready to generate extra MW at a moment's notice since the wind is so intermittent. To do so, they have to have a fire burning in the boiler, generating steam, and have the turbine spinning and synchronized to the grid running at low power or even no power -- a very inefficient way of operating. Only then can they ramp up to meet demand and keep the grid from crashing entirely. So while the wind is blowing, these conventional plants are still operating, burning fuel, but not operating at their highest efficiency levels, which is typically 100% power.
That is just the generation side of the equation. Wind also causes some unique problems on the transmission side. It is vital that the grid be balanced from a voltage and frequency standpoint, and because wind changes by the second, the output to the grid can cause voltage and frequency to vary beyond acceptable values and the higher the percentage of wind on the grid, the more dramatically values can jump. To keep the grid balanced, conventional plants that can respond rapidly must be deployed to track the frequency and voltage to keep the grid balanced.
“Wind power is usually given a priority on the Grid. If the wind is blowing some other source doesn’t get on.”
Out here in Washington state this year some (new?) wind farm was really cranking it out. The power company had to cut back on it’s hydroelectric output. But the reservoir was filled to the max so they had to let a bunch of water out through the spillway in a hurry. It wiped out a bunch of salmon nesting habitat.
I don’t recall if it was a problem with the engineering of the system (no “cut-off switch” or whatever from the wind farm), or if it was a legal/political thing - but the power company had to take the wind power. They have changed whatever it was so that in some cases they don’t have to now.
Hydro has been the very favorite backup source for wind developers for a lot of reasons. Partly because it's also clean and renewable and partly because under normal conditions it can be turned on and off in an instant. Since wind conditions are becoming more and more predictable that power on demand is becoming less important.
Obviously you are not in the power business. This article is spot on.
Wind power is unreliable - that is why the transportation industry got out of it 150 years ago. You don’t see clipper ships delivering goods and commodities to NY harbor, do you? There is a reason they abandoned it, because it stinks as an energy source.
Every wind deal only shows a pro forma power production for a maximum 35% of the year, but much less in reality. They cost $2500 per KW or about as much as a coal plant and produce so little power. Therefore you would have to install 3 times the windmills (3000 MW) to get to the power output of a 1000 MW coal plant. (Much more steel and concrete and wire go into those windmills than a coal plant!) Yet - what people don’t know because they have not read a wind study, on the continental US the two worst months for wind power are July and August. When you need electric power the most due to air conditioning demand, windmills produce virtually nothing. That’s why they have kept their fossil fuel plants!
The country pays 3 times for a windmill, once to put it up, the second is the $20 per MWhr that the government subsidizes its production and the third, and this is where Denmark is spot on - the fossil fuel powered backup required to stabilize the grid when 1000 MW’s of wind power stop suddenly. (This happened in Texas and almost brought down the grid.)
GE loves to sell wind turbines because behind every wind turbine sale is a natural gas fired turbine sale that is actually fired up and idling. It is called “spinning reserve” because grid operators realize the fragility of their system and they cannot rely on the wind so when the wind is blowing they start their turbines and idle them and as the wind dies down they ramp up the gas generators so there is a seamless stream of power to the grid. That is why Denmark did not close its fossil fuel plants - because they couldn’t and that is why our electric bills will continue to go up to subsidize wind and to pay for the equipment to back it up. The irony is that the utility is burning gas waiting for the wind to start, and then burning gas waiting for it to stop. Plus all the steel, concrete and wire that is forged to make these wasted wind assets when they produce so little power that is unreliable. The CEO of Socal Edison said for every 100MW’s of wind, he gets 6 usable MW’s.
Wind power cannot be stored and therefore it is a complete waste of resources. It also kills birds and bats and will destroy the ecology if allowed to continue.
Can experts on the board comment on what sounds like a great idea?
The “19% of the power” is misleading as well. As you pointed out, power and energy aren’t the same thing. So while it may be that the wind turbines can produce 19% of the power it might only be for limited amounts of time. It would be nice to know what the percentage of kWH is being produced.
The other issue I have heard from utility people, is that it is hard to balance the KVARs from these turbines. They need fossil plants that utilities can directly control to deal with the reactive loads.
Yes, vast amounts of it, which of course, can be released in a controlled or uncontrolled fashion...;)
Yes, they are. And they are NOT 'facts'. Here was someone elses rebutal from another site. >>>Examining the Danish Energy Agency’s report, Energy Statistics 2007, it is clear that Denmark had very little wind power in 1980, but significant wind power in 2007 (output of 38 terajoules in 1980 and 25,823 terajoules in 2007). On the other hand, consumption of oil for electric power production has fallen (from over 47,000 TJ in 1980 to just over 11,000 TJ in 2007); as has consumption of coal (from near 214,000 TJ in 1980 to almost 167,000 TJ in 2007). If you’d rather think in gigawatt-hours rather than terajoules, you can divide the TJ numbers by 3.6 to get GWh. <<<<
>>> Unfortunately you don’t know in advance when the wind will stop blowing and you can’t crank up a conventional plant in short order so you must keep the coal or gas running even though you are not spinning the turbines. It is called back-stopping and all wind generation has to be supported by conventional means. <<<
True.
But ‘backstopping’ is NOT going to result in the claimed increase in usage.
The % of power from wind is not large enought require shutting a plant fully down. They can be comfortably run at 50% capacity.
>>> But a plant operating at 95% capacity actually spits out LESS pollution than a plant operating at 50% capacity.<<<
Oh really? Try again.
It would probably be a true statement if you were talking about the plant EFFICIENCY.
But on a gross capacity basis, the plant at 50% will be emitting almost 1/2 the CO2, NOx, etc of the plant at full rates.
Now if I was running 2 plants at 50% versus 1 plant at 100%, I would prefer to run the one plant at 100% because it would run slightly more efficient and thus would emit slightly less CO2, NOx, etc.
However, if I am able to run 1 plant at 50% and get the rest of the power from wind turbines, then I would select to run this option as I would be halving my emissions and spending less on oil/gas from unreliable suppliers !!! {You know, the kind that cut you off for political reasons}
The arguement made about the increase cost of the wind farms and the high amount of land that needs to be used. Now that argument holds some weight.
I think perhaps the Europeans are more willing to subsidize wind power is because they are getting a lot of the Natural Gas from Russia. In the past, instability in Russia and the Ukraine, has caused widespread power outages in Europe.
One of the other counterpoints I have seen on the web, is that the cost of the Danish windpower is not that high in and of itself, but that the overall cost to the consumer is high because the government places a high tax on electic consumption.
I am with Palin on her energy policy -— ALL OF THE ABOVE.
I have my last hydro bill in hand.
I paid 5.91 cents per kilowatt hour for the first 1398 kwh, and 8.27 cents per kwh for the rest.
I’m in BC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.