Bishop Hill Lou's wind problem
Sep 18, 2012 Energy: wind Louise Gray assesses Owen Paterson's elevation to the cabinet, and in particular his attitude towards wind farms.
He suggested that wind farms can be “inefficient” – and fail to cut carbon emissions - because they have to be backed up by gas turbines.
“I am not convinced building wind farms in my area is the right way [forward] because you have more problems. You have to have back up from gas – that is operating inefficiently. “
A report from Civitas earlier this year claimed that wind farms are expensive because of the need for back up electricity from fossil fuels when the wind doesn’t blow.
It claimed wind farms cause more carbon emissions because turning back-up gas power stations on and off to cover spells when there is little wind actually produces more carbon than a steady supply of energy from an efficient modern gas station.
This is not the only reason that emissions might increase of course. If nuclear becomes uneconomic and can no longer operate at all, the shortfall would have to be made up with gas, with an inevitable increase in emissions.
More interesting than this though, is what Louise says next.
However a report from another think tank IPPR claimed that wind has already cut carbon emissions in the UK by 5.5m tonnes in 2011 alone.
Unfortunately, the IPPR report specifically mentions that their "naive model", on which the 5.5m tonne figure was based, excludes the system effects that Louise discusses in the previous paragraph. Of course this is not mentioned in the summary of the IPPR report, presumably because every policy lobbyist knows that journalists never read beyond that.
Unfortunately bloggers do.
Louise also claims that modern combined cycle gas turbines are capable of responding to fluctuating supply from wind turbines:
Major energy suppliers say that modern combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) are able to operate efficiently at a low level and ramp electricity up and down very effectively in order to meet the requirements of variable generation like wind.
A quick Google suggests that a modern CCGT will ramp up in 10-20 mins and notes that they are "stable" at low levels. OCGT can ramp up and down in one or two minutes.
Reader Comments (38)
Ah, dear Louise. I hope she wrote this article on water soluble paper because I know what I will be using it for.
Ivor Ward
The fragrant Louise normally churns press releases by cut'n'paste, so much so that there was speculation that she didn't actually exist. To counteract that assertion, a photo appeared. Now she has been let loose on actual journalism but cut'n'paste dies hard and in this case shows her analytical ability in all its glory. Who's relative is she?
This woman infuriates me and unlike a certain Mr Lean who always appears on Sunday on the same page, Louise can strike at any time, on any day, on any page and a large dose of claptrap ruins my cup of tea.
[snip - manners].
[Snip - venting]
"5.5m tonnes" is 5.5 milli-tonnes = 5.5kg, so LG might be about right ;-)
I suspect that Louise is also a mite confused about gas as used for steam generation and the kerosene used to fuel 'gas turbines'. She'd probably swoon if she realised they ran on oil...
[Snip - please stop]
This issue is actually a good example of the way in which the Telegraph has been dumbed down since being taken over by The Barclay brothers.
Examples:
Photographs are reused all the time. In the last week there have been three appearances of a bronze (I think) cast of a male minor deity with an ecstatic expression on his face and a clearly depicted minor erection.
The front page of the business section almost alway has a large photgraph of an attractive woman front and centre. There seems to be an internal competition to see who can come up with the most tenuous link between a story and an attractive woman.
On any day when there is to be a football match the sports section will carry a graphic showing the two teams and formations to be used, whoever produces this has no more idea than I do who will play or what formation will be used. At weekends this fills up at least two pages.
Stories are repeated even in the same issue, a front page story can be repeated in the body of the paper and sometimes repeated again in the business section.
I make these criticisms and yet this is still the best paper available >.<
Lean & Gray are employed by SHELL to press fot the ABATEMENT of Shale gas by CCS, a process that cannot possibly work.
(SHELL are more interested in Carbon Trading)
It looks as though the Norwegian Governments Company STATOIL have had enough and are countering with a series of their own.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
More tea vicar?
James P
Gas turbines will run perfectly well on natural gas, in fact slightly better than on kerosene or other liquid fuels.
However 10-20 minutes to get a CCGT up to full effect seems very optimistic to me. The second part of a CCGT is simply a steam turbine plant with associated steam generator and condenser, and it takes time to get the steam pressure up because of the high heat capacity of water. Of course the gas turbine part of a CCGT can be run independently from the steam section while this is being heated, but its efficiency will then be worse than a "pure" gas turbine plant, particularly if both parts use a single generator.
(dung, 6:13pm)
The Daily Telegraph - the best paper available for dung.
The Guardian's not bad, either, IME.
Nice touch on the sign-off Lou: Cue yah boo hiss;
"The MP for North Shropshire, who is pro-foxhunting, also gave his support for the badger cull."
Very Lewandowsky, how topical.
Louise and Geoffrey are the reasons we are giving up the DT. We are just sick of a paper that cannot recognise dodgy journalism.
Louise Gray merely pushing out what ever is feed to her from the green lobby , they show not the slightest interesting in investigation or even asking basic questions .
While I would never dream of calling him a statesman, the bold Donal Rumsfeld did leave behind one good quote in relation to known knowns, known unknowns and unknowns unknowns. Which about sums it up really.
*At this point in time all we can conclude is that 1 MWh of wind most certainly does not replace 1 MWh of fossil plant - as is claimed by those who have set this regulatory and financial model in place, i.e. this is the known known.
*The known unknown is that the degree for which reality differs from the above claim is significant and is also growing in significance as more wind is added. Is significant in the region of 50%? Certainly one would have a good indication of that from the data which is out there.
*The unknown unknown is exactly how much, for which a detailed study is required. Note, by law such information should be available here in the EU, a matter which I have been dealing with (it's a slow process).
So the first of the two bullet points at this point are key, the last one less so, but hopefully we will get there in time.
As regards writting articles in the media, getting the facts wrong does not in general lead to consequences. However, when authorities produced guidance, such as the below based on the first bullet point, and then use it to approve wind farms with massive financial and economic costs, then they are in a very serious situation with regard to their legal liabilities.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/25114657/4
For those of you interested in what procedures they are legally required to follow to approve a project, such as a wind farm, then it is well know that the Irish planning system is corrupt (Mahon Tribunal, etc). Much of this related to the fact that it was malleable, in particular as decisions were made on the basis of 'opinions' in the 'interest of proper planning and sustainable development'. This finally caught up with them in the European Court (unfortunately after a lot of international companies made it known they would not do business in Ireland), in case C-50/09. Following this ruling there is now draft guidance document issued to planning authroities, of which Section 3.5 onwards is worth a read:
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,30821,en.pdf
So if a competent authority wants to approve a wind farm, there has to be transparent information in relation to what its effects on climate will be. That has to be an assessment, with a 'paper trail' not a populist opinion. Indeed as the Aarhus Convention states:
*Recognizing the importance of fully integrating environmental considerations in governmental decision-making and the consequent need for public authorities to be in possession of accurate, comprehensive and up to date environmental information
I'm developing a scientific theory about the competance of people who argue about climate related issues who's names (phonetically) begin with the sound LEW. I started last week, and so far, my hypothesis is 100% spot on. Sample size is a bit dodgy, though. I'll wait before I publish. ;-)
I'm developing a scientific theory about the competance of people who argue about climate related issues who's names (phonetically) begin with the sound LEW. I started last week, and so far, my hypothesis is 100% spot on. My sample size is still a bit dodgy, though, so I'll wait before I publish. ;-)
If I recall correctly there was a Dutch paper recently that showed that the effect of wind generation on the load following plant was not the 2% loss of efficiency expected, but a 12% loss. That is more than sufficient to blow the 'carbon saving' out of the window.
FOI request idea Windturbine out at sea .
They gets damaged by heavy seas and storms and most obviously Salt Errosion
Is the damage covered by their own personal Insurance or does the Goverment underwrite it and pay for the repairs
What is the Percentage Marine Insurance Premium on an Offshore Windturbine compared to say a Jet Ski or a Boat or an Oil Tanker or an Oil Rig even.
PS
Still at sea , Large NATO Naval force gathering in the Persain Gulf and The Red Sea at the moment.
Waiting for this Youtube anti Moslem Video furore to die down then Israeli attack on Iran.
Cost of a Carbon Credit, a Barrel of Crude and a Shale Gas Drilling License shoot through the roof.
I have suggested to Ms. Gray, a little reading around the subject she reports on, would stand her in very good stead.
There is, a rather excellent hack, a man steeped in the conjecture and miasma of the duff science; dodgy data, bogus computer modelling which engulfs this subject - man made CO2= runaway warming.
A gentleman, a correspondent who understands and knows much about bird mincers and related subjects, he also works on the sister paper to which Ms. Gray is attached to - would it be too much to ask of a well paid correspondent to familiarize herself with the opposing viewpoint?
And then, perish the thought, to imbibe, assimilate all of the information. In the hope of, to causing her to silently muse and maybe begin to form her own and objective opinion of these weighty matters.
Honestly - would it?
I regret to read so much material that seems nothing more than defence of the Prince of Wales hallucinations.
Last winter, gas turbines in the state of Texas consumed more fuel gas than if the turbines weren't there at all - because of the inefficiency of intermittent operation the gas turbines.
18 Sept: KSN-TV: Hutchinson plant to lay off half its workforce
Siemens Energy makes wind turbines for the wind energy industry. It says it is restructuring its wind power business and it will affect approximately 615 employees primarily in Iowa, Kansas and Florida...
Siemens says there has been a significant drop in new wind power orders.
It says it's partly due to uncertainty surrounding the future of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for new wind turbine installations.
The company says that and the economy are casting a shadow on the short-term future of the entire U.S wind power industry...
http://www.ksn.com/mostpopular/story/Hutchinson-plant-to-lay-off-half-its-workforce/wPZ6fKyAdke62k5Q09BDhA.cspx
19 Sept: ScotsmanBlog: FRANK URQUHART: Donald Trump ordered to tone down crusade against Scottish wind farms
Earlier this year, the tycoon was reported to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) after he took out a full-page newspaper advert with a picture of 11 rusting and redundant wind turbines, under the headline “Welcome to Scotland!”
The advert proclaimed: “Alex Salmond wants to build 8,750 of these monstrosities – just think about it!”
The advert carried a footnote stating “photo not taken in Scotland” and it later emerged that the turbines featured in the advert had been photographed at a redundant wind-farm site at Kamaoa in Hawaii.
In a ruling, issued today, the ASA upheld complaints by Scottish Renewables that the advert gave a misleading impression of the possible consequences of the Scottish Government’s wind-turbines plan and the type of turbines likely to be used in Scotland, as well as exaggerating the Scottish government’s estimate for offshore wind-farm developments...
Niall Stuart, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, said: “We are pleased that the ASA has agreed with the points we and others made about the advert...
“Figures show that Scotland’s wind power sector is delivering hundreds of millions of pounds of investment each year, supporting thousands of jobs and forms a key part of the plan to cut Scotland’s carbon emissions.”
Mr Trump could not be contacted for comment, but a spokeswoman for his organisation said: “The advert served its purpose and illustrated what will happen to Scotland if the government’s ludicrous plans to build thousands of turbines goes ahead.”...
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/donald-trump-ordered-to-tone-down-crusade-against-scottish-wind-farms-1-2533729
from the comments:
"It is difficult to see anything wrong with his advert when it stated that the picture was not taken in Scotland. He was not wrong with his numbers of turbines. Let us also remember that the wind industry got slapped on the wrist for grossly exaggerating the emission savings due to wind turbines."
Not sure if this is a sign of things to come although I think they where to shut anyway. It kinda mentions gas turbines but doesn't say if these will take up the slack.
Didcot and Fawley power stations to close in March 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19634089
The warmists are having a hissy fit because the windmills aren't there to save CO2 but are a cross between the Easter Island Statues and the Swastika, a symbol of totalitarian control.
6 fossil grids** have shown wind power above 10% demand cause steam turbines to hunt; their slew rate can't follow the rate set by the 'unit controller', the person who looks at the dials and adjusts steam pressure to follow load. I do know one who ran a 60 MW turbine in WA and told me what happens when the wind array north of Perth reaches 10%. All Paterson is doing is acting on real data.
**Holland, Denmark, Germany, Eire, WA, Colorado, Texas. The Danes have systematically lied about it.
tty
I agree with you on the subject of CCGT run-up time. The second stage is usually a steam range and that will have a significant thermal capacity.
Louise Gray makes some other strange claims such as CCGT stations being used to back-up coal fired stations. This is rubbish. The two main sources of reserve and response on the UK grid are pumped storage and coal, the latter running part-loaded (and therefore, at reduced efficiency). The CCGT owners do not like part loading their plant because that also reduces efficiency and sharply increases maintenance costs due to the inherent thermal cycling in the turbines.
The situation with OCGTs as backup is not as rosey as some would think: OCGTs are very unreliable at startup. That was the reason why the magnox stations had redundancy in OCGTs numbers protecting gas circulator operation against grid failures.
If we were to go back to the halcyon days of the CEGB, all the reserve and response for the UK would be carried by Dinorwig and Ffestiniog.
Pat
Thanks for the two links. I think the second should be:
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,1633,en.pdf
Is that right?
Ferdinand: "Louise and Geoffrey are the reasons we are giving up the DT. We are just sick of a paper that cannot recognise dodgy journalism."
Agreed. I read the DT for years and years, then had a break. I came back to it recently with a six month subscription and was appalled at what had happened to it. Even the cartoons are crap - and this in a paper that used to have Nicholas Garland. Well, Matt can be funny still, but he seems to be absorbing the DT's politics (the Mary Riddell brand).
tty
"Gas turbines will run perfectly well on natural gas"
Sorry, my mistake. I didn't think the energy was dense enough, but then if you're running a power station, size isn't really a problem (the working part of an aircraft turbine is surprisingly small). We have a GT generating plant down the road, designed to power the Isle of Wight if the undersea cables fail, and that has two Olympus (Concorde) engines that can fire up very quickly. They run on kerosene - lots of it!
The reason for having jet engines fuelled by kerosene is because the energy has to be supplied so quickly when the wind drops that you can't pump methane fast enough.
This shows more than any other issue how stupid windmills are because you increase CO2 emissions and make the system inherently unstable.
The only way to save any CO2 is to have pump storage pumped by nuclear power so the 30% efficiency loss is CO2-free.
Don't forget the halycon days of NOSHEB, and Cruachan and latterly Foyers!
Ms. Gray does come up with rubbish. I am surprised that the DT still uses her. She ignores emails as well.
Not the best journo in the world.
lapogus: "Don't forget the halycon days of NOSHEB, and Cruachan and latterly Foyers!"
Err, Foyers is fairly hopeless because its response is so slow, and in terms of reserve, it'll start in a few minutes, but not the few seconds of Dinorwig. Good for load shifting only.
Cruachan might have been a good station, but they went and split the engineering design in two. Maintenance and upgrades have been sadly lacking, and they still run the original English Electric mechanical governors which will give you a response but you can never be sure how fast and how much you'll get.
Not the best examples of Scottish Engineering, and things have hardly improved at Glendoe have they?
I will not have a word said against Cruachan, my father worked there in the sixties and early 70s, and I have fond memories playing in the transformer hall and 1000ft high air air ventilation shaft when I was a kid - long before the days of H&S of course. I can't remember the response time now, a minute I think, but yes Dinorwig is much faster (but it was commissioned 20 years later than Cruachan), Granted that Glendoe has been a bit of a disaster, but the company responsible for the tunnelling were German! ;)
Cruachan is younger than Ffestiniog, but Ffestiniog can deliver nearly 150 MW of primary response; Cruachan can't.
And at Glendoe, it was the Scots who cancelled the concrete tunnel lining.
@Capell
The draft guidelines on EIA can also be found through the link below. The secret to this is the obligation of the competent authroity to complete their own transparent assessment of the climate change impacts of the wind farm they are approving. They cannot rely on opinions or references to policies, which in themselves have never gone through this assessment process.
http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/
John Marshall: - Ms. Gray does come up with rubbish. I am surprised that the DT still uses her. She ignores emails as well. Not the best journo in the world.
Is there an environmental correspondent who isn't (at the risk of getting snipped) thick? I can't think of an environmental correspondent who should really be reporting about the rescue of cats stuck up trees, rather than matters of global significance.
Perhaps a more charitable word is 'mediocre'. I know a number of hugely talented people who haven't succeeded in journalism as a career. Either nobody with any talent is drawn to the area, or perhaps it takes great talentlessness to succeed in it. Maybe the editorial decision is simply to tick the 'environmental correspondent' box -- which in itself reveals a mediocrity at work. And this is not just about disagreement with them. I've had plenty of good debates with those of a greener hue, who can sustain a coherent argument. But those sent to cover the issue struggle to understand much about it, much less demonstrate any ability to think critically.
Ben Pile at 9.22pm.
Ben, I would suggest it is the case that being an environmental correspondent is similar to being a religious correspondent 50 or so years ago. All the underlying premises are unquestioned in the main by the MSM so you don't have to be an enquiring, balanced, objective reporter. The more alarmist you are the more the editor likes it. But one day they will have some explaining to do.