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 ...
It’s a transmission issue. You’d think this could get fixed by more power lines. But NIMBY stops them.
That is an assumption. I don't know if the 19% is nameplate capacity, or actual MHH delivered --- I assumed the latter for the example on explaining why wind does not eliminate conventional plants.
Obviously my examples are at the extreme and were meant for illustration only, but in a sane world that we used to have, plant dispatch was on a 'lest cost basis'. Now, the sacred, subsidized 'renewables' in much of the US and I'd assume in Denmark as well, must be first dispatch regardless of their cost. It is a hidden tax on consumers that goes directly to the fat-cat financiers of these inefficient facilities.
The fact is whether conventional plants operating at zero MW in standby mode, or at 20, 40, 60 or 80 percent in a load follow mode, the most expensive power gets preference over the least expensive sources which are forced to operate below optimum levels which also drives their cost up, which only get passed on to consumers. The bottom line is that proven to the ultimate and Denmark (and Spain) does noting for the 'environment' in terms of CO2 reduction while drives costs up for consumers, putting the grid in precarious positions, and only benefits opportunists living off government subsidies for building these so called 'eco friendly' facilities in the first place.
If the technology is so great, I'd like to see one of the developers really put their ass on the line --- disconnect from the grid and build a process plant around the wind farm. Maybe some energy intensive industry like an aluminum smelter or chemical plant, or maybe even a water cracking plant for hydrogen. That would reduce their carbon footprint. But building these things to attach to the grid does absolutely nothing to reduce CO2.
I don't know exactly what that means, but the GE, Vestras, Siemens grid-based wind farm horse would be dog food without taxpayer subsidies, and it has no hope of ever being anything else in that application. They have reached the ultimate in their technology.
Off grid, it might have some applications in a process application where reliability and predictability in supply is not a primary issue.
The point is the same - bringing a megawatt of wind power on line doesn't mean you reduce the size of your coal plant - the coal capacity still has to be there when the wind dies down.
Presbyterian Reporter replied: Do you have a source for that premise saying highest wind speeds are overnight?
It seems counterintuitive to me
I can't point to a written source, although I'd recommend doing a search on wind output profiles in google. I'm in the energy industry operation field, and have sat through many meetings and presentation on wind planning in the US, actual wind operation summaries, and mitigation groups dealing with the problems that are, and will be, caused by wind installation.
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.