IPPR on wind

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has got together with some green energy consultants to discuss whether wind energy is a Good Thing. Given the nature of the co-authors, I'm sure you can guess their conclusions.

The authors propose what they call a steady state model of the electricity grid.

Adding wind energy to electricity supply without altering demand will displace or push out an equivalent amount of supply from the marginal plant.

Having established a simple model of the electricity system, in order to estimate the carbon impact of adding wind energy we need to first establish which generation type is the ‘marginal plant’ and secondly how much CO2 it emits. In the UK there are two fossil-fuel candidates for the role of the most common ‘marginal plant’ – coal and gas.

Now this is a bit sneaky. The authors start by discussing the "marginal plant" and then move on to discussing not the candidates for that marginal plant but the "fossil fuel candidates". How did that pesky modifier make it into the sentence. As Gordon Hughes points out in his report "the key margin in the UK is
between wind and nuclear power".

If you make nuclear uneconomic by replacing part of its output with subsised wind power, you will lose all of its output and will have to make up the shortfall with inefficient open-cycle gas generation. You have replaced completely carbon-free generation with a mixture of carbon-free and carbon-intense generation. So depending on how much wind you have in the system and how the rest of your electricity is generated it is certainly possible to increase your carbon emissions.

To their credit the authors mention the system effects in their report, although it is left out of the conclusions, which are based solely on the naive "steady state" model. Their justification for this presumably relates to a draft paper they cite which found that carbon emissions have been reduced on US electricity grids. Given what we have said about the importance of the relative proportions of different generation types in the system, it's not clear to me that the US experience translates to the UK, but the paper is certainly worth a look.

Update on Aug 31, 2012 by Bishop Hill

Colin McInnes analyses the IPPR report (H/T Omnologos) and finds that the implied cost of saving carbon through wind power is £130/tonne, which makes it absurdly expensive.

Comments

[dave ward]

The following quote from JoNova's latest post confirms my thoughts about coal fired stations:

"Owners of Yallourn, Hazelwood and Loy Yang power stations had confirmed in writing that the power stations combined consume about 7762 tonnes of coal an hour. They have confirmed that the power stations do not change the coal feed intake 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year"

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/wind-farms-are-96-useless-and-cost-150-times-more-than-necessary-for-what-they-do/#comment-1118919

Rather blows a hole through the IPPR claiming that wind will displace higher polluting coal (and thereby "reduce" CO2)...

[Capell]

I've just had my attention drawn to an article in The Australian reporting the findings of a two-year study conducted by a mechanical engineer, Hamish Cumming, into Victoria's wind-farm developments and finds they have saved virtually zero carbon dioxide emissions in the state.

I can't quote the whole article here, but here are a few quotes from the article, such as:

"Cumming references an AEMO presentation to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission where the AEMO showed that for the wind farms in SA in 2009 the greenhouse gas abatement was only 3 per cent of the total capacity of the wind farms installed.

This equated to a 0.6 per cent reduction of greenhouse gases for the entire state's electrical generation from fossil fuels."

""AEMO five-minute data shows that peaks are picked up (ones that exceed base load) by Hydro or fossil fuel generators."

Cumming has called for Victoria's wind developments to be stripped of public subsidies."

I especially like that last sentence! And the Australioans have, it seems, our equivalent to IPPR in the form of SKM (who should know better):

"David Clarke, senior manager, community relations for Acciona Energy, which operates the Waubra wind farm, said a SKM report commissioned by the Clean Energy Council found "a 100MW wind farm operating at 35 per cent capacity factor would each year on average reduce emissions by 26,700 tonnes in the National Electricity Market." And a Sustainability Victoria commissioned report in 2006 found "abatement of between 0.25 and 0.31 million tonnes per annum for the 100MW".

However, Cumming said the reports on greenhouse gas abatement did not take into account the continuation of burning coal during the time the wind farms were operational.

"The reports you refer to are theoretical abatements, not real facts.
Coal was still burnt and therefore little if any GHG was really abated," he told Clarke.

"Rather than trying to convince me with reports done by or for the wind industry, or the government departments promoting the industry, I challenge you to give me actual coal consumption data in comparison to wind generation times data that supports your argument."

Comparing the IPPR report and the Bentek report (the latter has been 'slammed' for being prepared by those in the pay of the fossil fuel generators, unlike the IPPR which is as pure as driven snow) the two quote similar figures for California, Texas and the Midwest. It's just that IPPR conveniently forget to mention the figures for other regions where there is little coal-fired generation and which show minimal CO2 savings.

[Robin Guenier]

This article from EurActiv.com, “the independent media portal fully dedicated to EU affairs”, may provide some clues as to how the EU views the recent UN Compliance Committee ruling re regulation/instruction about consultation on plans for “renewables”. Some extracts:

The compliance committee … [is] not a judicial body, so cannot sanction signatory countries.

Julian Scola, communication director for the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), told EurActiv that they were looking into the complaint, saying it appears to be a matter “about Ireland which EPAW [the European Platform Against Windfarms] claims has a wider significance.”

Commission spokesman for environment and climate change, Cezary Lewanowicz, told EurActiv that most of the EU executive's comments were taken into account and accepted by the UN panel for its final findings.

As such the final document only appeals for "clear instructions" for public participation as opposed to statutory changes.

Lewanowicz said the Commission intends to issue such clear instructions to member states when they update their NREAPs.

One environmental campaigner in Brussels, who preferred not to be named, said EPAW / WCFN [the World Council for Nature] were "all too clearly trying to make a mountain out of a molehill."

Claude Turmes, vice-president of the Greens/European Free Alliance, said … the EPAW/ WCFN statement was a "lobby exercise" that "really overstretched" what was written in the original UN document, and was "twisting information".

In other words: move along please, there’s nothing to see here. And – to rub that in – EurActiv adds:

Blow to anti-wind farm groups

Meanwhile in Britain, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), a think-tank, has chipped into the mounting evidence for the efficiency of wind farms as an energy source.

Groan.

[Capell]

The EU Commission appears to believe that a vast majority of Europeans favour a move to renewable energy. Judging by the Telegraph comments that have greeted the IPPR study that doesn't sound very plausible.

[Robin Guenier]

Capell:

I rather doubt if commentators on the Telegraph website are representative of the vast majority of Europeans. More's the pity.

[Pat Swords]

Opinions of Euroactive have no standing in a court of law, that is all they are. Lots of opinions around the place, so what, it is the facts which count.

The implementation of the 2009/28/EC renewable energy Directive through the NREAPs failed to comply with the Convention, which is a binding part of European and Member State law.

Who enforces such laws? "Quis ipsos custodes custodiet". Essentially Article 9 of the Convention provides for the citizen to challenge acts and omissions of the authorities in a legal process, which has to be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive. In no uncertain terms what we have is officials, both elected and non-elected pursuing this programme completely outside the rule of law. This agenda of theirs is associated with huge financial and environmental costs and no measurable benefit. Their liabilities in relation to claims for damage are growing all the time.

As regards Euroactive, the article is very weak, populist journalism. There was no effort to analyse the legal aspects of the ruling (they didn't have the capability). Immediately 'groupthink' was reinforced by quoting the industry representative EPAW (surely not an objective independent source), followed by "one environmental campaigner in Brussels, who preferred not to be named". Rubert Murdoch would be proud of this form of 'Journalism'.

An alternative more indepth view can be seen in the following French publication: http://www.journaldelenvironnement.net/article/l-onu-epingle-les-energies-renouvelables-europeennes,30523 (autotranslate available)

Incidently the following article in Der Spiegel International with respect to the lack of democracy in relation to such a simple thing as light bulbs, should really be sending the alarm bells ringing in relation to the situation which has now developed:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eu-light-bulb-ban-illuminates-power-struggle-in-brussels-a-852931.html

So bottom line, industry lobby groups and 'environmental campaigners in Brussels, who prefer not to be named' are as a minimum dictating to you what type of lighting implements you are allowed to buy. More of this coming, so either get used to it or do something about it.