Bishop Hill Missing the point?
Sep 26, 2012 Climate: WG3 Energy: wind There is lots of excitement among greens this morning over an article by Mark Lynas, which purports to show that wind farms do not increase carbon emissions.
From analysing National Grid data of more than 4,000 half-hour periods over the last three months, a strong correlation between windiness and a reduction in gas-fired generation becomes clear. The exchange rate is about one for one: a megawatt hour of wind typically meant the UK grid used one less megawatt hour of gas-derived electricity. This means that actual CO2 savings can be calculated from the data with a high degree of accuracy – these are not guesstimates from models, but observations of real-world data.
Over a year, based on the amount of electricity wind is currently generating each day, wind turbines save around 6.1m tonnes of carbon dioxide, or about 4% of the UK's emissions from electricity (based on CCGT plants emitting around 350 kg CO2 per mWh). This figure provides independent confirmation for the trade body RenewableUK's estimate of a current reduction in annual emissions from the entire UK wind fleet of about 6m tonnes.
I haven't had a chance to go through this thoroughly, but at first glance the article appears to be entirely risible. The wind-sceptic argument is that efficiency losses in gas-fired generators offset (perhaps more than offset) any emissions savings from wind. So to show that wind power replaces gas-fired generation on a one-to-one basis is completely irrelevant seems to miss the point - it is a statement of the patently obvious, since supply (we hope) has to meet demand.
The question that needs to be addressed is that of the efficiency of the gas-fired generation that is still operating.
Or am I missing something in Lynas's argument?
Reader Comments (127)
Sure though these gentlemen are missing the point. Yes wind can reduce the amount of gas we import, yes it can reduce the amount of CO2 emissions but if there are no real negative effects of either then what is the justification for using wind power which has to be subsidised from higher bills. The back up power arguments are irrelevant. The argument against wind is that it isn't needed
Mark Lynas,
I endorse the comments others have made showing appreciation for your contribution and for participating in the debate here.
You say:
That statement is not supported. I suspect it may not be correct because we have no actual measurements of CO2 emissions. The emissions estimates have many sources of error and potentially significant error. Without measurements we are just guessing.
You also say:
That is a significant assumption and subject to significant uncertainties. This emissions intensity figures is quoted for a particluar modern CCGT operating at optimum efficiency. However, there are many different CCGT plants of various designs, various ages, with different efficiencies. Furthermore, the plants do not operate at optimum efficiency much the time. The efficiency is reduced by operating part loaded, in spinning reserve, starting and stopping and powering up and down to follow load changes. The overall efficiency is lower if they have to back up for the changing wind power. Furthermore, OCGTs are used more and more need to be built and available if there is wind generation capacity in the generation system than would be the case if there was no wind capacity.
Given the above, I would like to know, from actual emissions measurement data, how much emissions are avoided by wind generation and what is the abatement cost?
Joe Wheatley (2011) analysed the estimated emissions from the EirGrid and showed that the emissions avoided by wind generation decrease as the wind penetration increases. http://joewheatley.net/emissions-savings-from-wind-power/ In comment #18 he provided this information:
In two comments here http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2012/09/high-wind-production-in-south-australia/#comment-4745 I discuss the CO2 emissions avoided by wind generation in South Australia and explain how to calculate the CO2 abatement cost. Here is an extract from my second comment.
I would appreciate your comments on the above.
Analogy time: You have a farm next to a river but your government says you can only water your crops with rain water. To be honest I’d hate to live in such a stupid society, oh wait, never mind.
I agree with posters above that the whole exercise (irrespective of its methodological flaws) is irrelevant. What matters, even if you accept the desirability of reducing CO2 emissions, is what it is costing you to do it relative to other methods, both for taxpayers and in terms of social costs like landscape degradation and higher prices which disproportionately affect the poor.
There is no getting around the fact that wind power is many times more expensive than conventional power, and that it will never supply reliable power. Even accepting your methodology, the premise of the exercise is simply wrong. It is like pretending that if a few people grow vegetables in the back yard, this will somehow help the environment. The reality, inefficiency is invariably more damaging to the environment than inefficiency, because it requires more resources to produce the same or less of a given product.
oops, should read -
The reality is, inefficiency is invariably more damaging to the environment than efficiency, because it requires more resources to produce the same or less of a given product.
In an interview/debate on FOX News: (The debate was about eliminating the US PTC) AWEA CEO Denise Bode was making a curious point about "cheap flexible" energy like Wind and Gas having to "compete" with "expensive inflexible" coal and NUKE.
I read into this comment that Ms. Bode is complaining about Baseload. And while demand is being met by baseload, coal and/or NUKE cannot accommodate wind. (Of course what isn't mentioned is that Wind performs best at night when baseload is most likely to be met). If coal and NUKE are so expensive, compared to Wind and Gas, I assume there's some other factor that makes them usefull for Baseload Generation.
I'll assume coal and NUKE are workhorses, extremely reliable and predictable whose maintenance can be routinely scheduled. Gas can have some reliability issues and maintenance issues can arise with little warning.
Considering wind flexible is laughable (Fox News' point was if it's cheap they don't need the PTC). Wind is only "flexible" in that any energy generation can be turned off. If there's no wind, there's no enwrgy to turn on. So Bode wants the Baseload lowered so the gas/wind scenario can take place. So the point that's being missed is that wind usually finds itself trying to replace coal or NUKE NOT GAS.
As with the others I'd like to thank Martin and Chris for going over the issues with us. Also as with the others I don't believe wind is desirable, or provides a solution. I may have misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that we don't need back up energy sources because the generation companies already produce energy to keep supplies going in when requirements surge. So, if wind is providing 20% of the energy, and the windmills are becalmed then we can use the energy reserved for surges. but what happens if we have a surge while the windmills are becalmed. I think you'd do well to consult some independent engineers.
The juggernaut rolls on .....
There seems to be a competition to see who can get to economic ruin first.
The Lynas/Goodall article is ostensibly about whether wind power saves CO2. But it’s also about whether the UK can keep the lights on. The latter is by far the more important: UK CO2 savings are meaningless in a global context but loss of power means disaster. And on that the article is unconvincing.
As it notes, on 14 September wind energy contributed about 10% of total UK power. In contrast, on 8, 9 and 10 August (during the Olympics) wind contributed about 0.01% – effectively nothing. (Note: the idea that the wind is always blowing somewhere is a myth.) Currently wind contributes a maximum of 10% and a minimum of 0% (say an average of 5%) and the Grid can easily cope. But if wind were to contribute a maximum of 50% and an average of 20% (as in Spain and as is planned for the UK), the minimum (as in Spain) would still be 0%. And that’s the key issue.
Spain copes by having substantial nuclear and hydro resource to provide a base load and by ramping its reliable coal and CCGT resource up and down when the wind doesn’t blow (see this). It’s inefficient but it seems to work. Of course, without wind, the system would work perfectly well – and more efficiently. But, without coal and/or CCGT (or nuclear or hydro), it would face disaster. In other words, wind is little more than a self-indulgent luxury. No wonder Spain is stopping wind subsidy. Germany also gets a substantial share of its energy from wind. But it’s phasing out its nuclear base load capability. So, in an attempt to avoid disaster, it’s investing heavily in coal-fired power. So much for CO2 reduction.
How about the UK? Well, with our current conventional power mix, we could arguably cope with much more wind energy by, like Spain, ramping those reliable coal and CCGT resources up and down. But that’s not an option: we’re phasing out a substantial part of our nuclear and coal plant over the next few years. There’s no prospect of our building new nuclear plant in time and new coal plant is not allowed. So we need a lot more gas plant, enough to provide base load and normal operating reserve and, to avoid disaster, enough to quickly cover the shortfall (the target is 20% of power from wind by 2016/2017) when wind produces no power – which typically happens when it’s very cold.
Although Mark Lynas hints on this thread that there might be a problem, the article gives no indication that this requirement is understood. And, even if it were, now is no time for self-indulgent luxury: it would be better simply to build the new gas resource and forget the wind.
Sep 27, 2012 at 8:31 AM | JohnB
I assume there's some other factor that makes them usefull for Baseload Generation.
The most important factor is that it is quite easy to store enough fuel on site to cover fuel supply disruptions of up to one year duration.
Because base-load is a 24/7 requirement, this can only be guaranteed by having proper power stations which cannot run out of fuel.
This benefit of fuel storage on site is often overlooked by "dash to natural gas" advocates.
OCGTs generally run on distillate held in on-site storage tanks, but the capacity is only intended to cover a few days running.
Dear Johanna,
@8:26 am you said
I humbly beg to differ. I suggest the amount of CO2 avoided by wind generation and the cost per tonne CO2 avoided is a very important issue. In fact, I suggest is it one of the most important issues concerning whether we should or should not be subsidizing and mandating renewable energy.
In Australia, as you probably know, our government has committed to renewable energy policies totalling $25 billion. That is equivalent to 10% of Australia’s total federal government debt. It is an enormous amount of money. The policy decisions are based on the assumption that renewable energy, mostly wind energy, will reduce CO2 emissions by the amounts claimed by the proponents. And, furthermore, that this is a low cost way to reduce emissions.
However, we have no good evidence to support the assumptions. We have no actual measurements of CO2 emissions. And the estimates are based on assumptions such as Mark Lynas has made in his article.
Therefore, I suggest it is a critical issue and we do need to get to the bottom of it. Therefore, I would urge readers to take this seriously. I do not believe we should not accept Mark Lynas’s conclusions without challenge.
Maybe it would help to look at the records and data to see what happened in reality?
I am sure the Grid has extensive and detailled records of loads, plants running, outputs, efficiencies, etc..
So it should be possible to look at a selection of periods of similar loads but with different contributions from wind. Knowing which plants were running - including the spinning reserves - their outputs at the time and their efficiencies it would surely be possible to work out the total emissions.
That would show very clearly what impact different levels of wind output had on overall emissions.
Let’s estimate the CO2 abatement cost with wind energy in the UK and compare that with the current EU carbon price.
Let’s assume some numbers for UK grid and substitute them for the numbers in my comment @ 6:51 am. I don’t know the appropriate UK numbers, so I’ll assume the following and others can substitute the appropriate numbers for the UK.
Assumptions and calculations:
CO2 emissions avoided:
Wind power displaces CCGT, average emissions intensity = 0.4 t/MWh
Wind penetration by 2020 = 20%
Wind power avoids 77% of emissions at 20% wind penetration (assuming UK is the same as EirGrid, “Emissions savings from wind power”: http://joewheatley.net/emissions-savings-from-wind-power/ , comment #18)
Emissions avoided by wind generation = 77% x 0.4 t/MWh = 0.3 t/MWh
CO2 Avoidance cost:
Additional cost of electricity from wind generation (this cost should include all the hidden subsidies and hidden cost transfers to the fossil fuel generators) = £40/MWh
CO2 abatement cost with wind generation in UK = £40/MWh / 0.3 t/MWh = £133/t.
On the basis of the assumptions used here, CO2 abatement cost with wind generation in UK is about 20 times the current EU carbon price.
Is that a rational policy?
[Please substitute the appropriate numbers for UK and re do the calculations.]
Browndoff
Hey! Thanks for that info.
The whole energy cycle is extremely complex.
The more I understand - To gum it all up with renewables makes so little sense
Thanks
John
Lynas misses the point in his response.
The argument is NOT about whether inefficient gas sets become the norm for covering peak demand and low wind: The argument is about the operational inefficiency of any thermal plant that is forced to undergo high levels of dispatch events.
This already happens, it is true, on account of the day/night change in demand. And the renewable argument has been always that since we have to do that, wind and solar won't make it much worse. Well indeed it won't, not in small quantities, but in larger ones you are starting to see - especially in Germany - renewable slew rates that exceed the normal rate of change of demand.
Think of it this way. Every time you switch off a power station and let it cool down, all the energy in that power station is lost. And must be replaced on start-up. Its a 0% efficient period. At the moment demand is very predictable given the national weather - its highly temperature dependent and cold weather guarantees about 20% more demand by day for example. And diurnal variation is also well known
So you need, as a grid operators to have ready and bring onstream a predictable amount of coal and gas plant to meet demand once a day, largely.
Wind output versus forecast is massively less predictable especially in high wind situations. Whole windfarms and areas can shut down if the wind is liable to overspeed the turbines. Solar output can vary by 4:1 or more if the weather turns cloudy. This just adds more partially unknown dispatch requirements on the conventional grid. And each <known dispatch requirement represents fuel burn to achieve no output beyond warming up or cooling down a power station that isn't producing useful output. And each unknown POSSIBLE dispatch requirement means running plant on hot standby or spinning reserve. And each dispatch requirement adds wear tear and stress on plant through thermal cycling, lessening service life and increasing energy spent on repair.
Lynas understands none of this: His arguments are predicated on the same old lie that the renewables lobby has been peddling for years, that every unit of renewable energy generated results in the equivalent loss in the fuel used to generate it by conventional means. He has proved nothing beyond the fact that obviously electrical output from conventional power is complementary to renewables in a given demand situation. Well big deal.
That is not the point and never has been: it's a total straw man.
The argument has been whether the increased size and frequency of dispatch events imposed on the fossil grid nullifies or even negates the fuel saving accomplished by the lower actual electrical output they are required to generate, on average.
Until we have data comparable to NETA on fuel flow and fuel consumption, his calculations are meaningless.
It is significant that neither the renewable lobby, nor any European government has ever actually put in place a study not to estimate fuel savings, but to measure them.
In short government policy (as Lilley points out) is based on assumptions that are deeply questionable and upon which no effort has been spent whatsoever to establish their veracity, or not. Which is in fact illegal.
The UK is supposed to be a democracy (we all know the EU makes a nonsense of that but the government like to keep up the pretence) and there is no doubt that the public's main priority is the cheapest most reliable energy. Industry has even greater needs because the success of our manufacturers depends on keeping costs down and staying competetive.
Right now our government is deliberately increasing the cost of energy to both public and industrial customers. The government knows that it is not acting in the best interests of our population, our industry or our nation as a whole but it feels safe because the only party that would do anything different is UKIP and it is not worried by UKIP.
The justification for the policy is Climate Change although Sustainability is bubbling just beneath the surface. However the government knows that the UK alone can have no effect at all on climate and it also knows that the USA, China, India and even Germany are going all out for coal or gas or both.
The government knows that its policy is not having the slightest effect on climate (even if CO2 was a problem) so why is it still doggedly pursuing it?
There can be only one answer; individual politicians in our government are on a holier than thou backslapping ego trip funded by us plebs which enables them to strut around the world with their heads held high pontificating to others about "the right thing to do".
Would anyone care to suggest another explanation?
MasterResource has just posted part five of a series of articles that provide detailed analyses of wind energy. Well worth a visit to gain an appreciation of the plethora of costs and inefficiencies associated with industrial wind. The link is to part five, but links within that article take you to parts one through four.
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/09/wind-consequences-v/
Again, thanks to Mark and Chris for commenting directly here. In particular I was interested in the comments from National Grid and CCGT operator, useful stuff.
So agreed, you have debunked the Christopher Booker argument that all wind plant, regardless of deployment, hardly saves any CO2. But what you have actually demonstrated is that in the UK Wind plant makes a net contribution by displacing the energy generated by CCGT plant, saving the associated fuel and CO2 emissions. In other words, in the UK, wind is not a power generating technology, but a fuel and CO2 mitigation technology!!
This is an important distinction, and one that busts rather more green myths than wind sceptic myths. Once the distinction is understood, its obvious wind can't increase energy security, or increase grid diversity (as it crowds out coal and nuclear); neither does wind provide any capacity value. It also busts the inane suggestion that we need to stop our dash for gas, when in actual fact it guarantees a dash for gas: more wind means we must have more gas. Please read your comments above, the conclusion is inescapable.
So, why was your article in the Guardian, so one sided? Did you not realise the implications of what you had discovered?
It also explains the complete dogs dinner of the coalitions energy bill: integration of wind energy onto the grid adds significant integrations costs, unintended costs and distorts the market; such that all energy suppliers end up needing regulations and subsidies.
Adding wind plant to the grid increases costs. For the amount of CO2 and fuel saved are theses costs affordable ? Given the high costs of wind plant, the producer subsidies and the small amounts of leccy generated, I think we can work out the answer to that one quite easily.
I have come to the conclusion that the whole point of wind is to guarantee the end of energy intensive industries and drive them to some other country with cheap reliable energy.
By that method the CO2 savings will be immense.
Bruce: The other 'whole point' of wind is the extraction by the turbine owners of as much money as possible from the consumer, aided and abetted by the politicians (also with their noses in the trough) before the political 'wind of change' forces them to stop, but even then, they'll have the long-term contracts they'll demand are honoured.
As with all such vociferous groups pressing a 'solution' on the populous 'for their own good' - follow the money. It's ALWAYS about money.
ilma
“it’s always about money”
Easy to lose sight of that. Occam’s razor is never more applicable than when a quick buck is in view, especially with extra helpings of government subsidy.
How many windmills or solar installations would have been built if they had to operate in the normal marketplace?
New CCGT is likely to go the same way as New Nuclear has gone in recent weeks, that is, the potential constructors will say to the DECC lunatics in their blacked-out conference rooms:
"by the way, as more and more wind comes on line and takes priority over us we are unable to make ends meet as we have to cut back on operating hours, so, if you want us to build the CCGT capacity that is necessary to keep the lights on, as ancient coal and nuclear power stations are retired (or murdered), you will have to guarantee that we will receive £N/MWh for our output (where N is a very large number - at least 140) or we walk away".
They will then go on to say "also, if you want us to participate in your OCGT spinning reserve, sorry, capacity mechanism farce, you will have to guarantee a minimum of £X times N/MWh for our output (where X could be 2, 3 or 4, we have not decided yet) or we walk away".
Happy days.
I am buying a diesel generator and a diesel tank before the price of generator sets goes through the roof. I already have the log fire and my 7 acres of coppice. The only problem will be keeping out the retired politicians dressed as tramps trying to avoid being recognised and getting their sorry arses kicked for dumping our Country in the swamp.
The 'management' of the BBC news filter is legendary. Roger Helmer, who gave an excellent speech at the UKIP conference (on You Tube here)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQPm528T4Fs
is surprisingly also posted, if you search hard enough, on the labyrinthine BBC website, as a truncated and poor sound quality version on the BBC iplayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01n997r/UKIP_Conference_2012_Roger_Helmer_MEP_Speech/
but the main snippet of interest re this thread is the recent correspondence between Helmer and Harrabin on the topic of wind CO2 emissions savings, and the suppression of the studies questioning same.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/bbc-environment-correspondent-roger-harrabin/
Here's another thought: if, as we have established, wind power is entirely redundant up to the point where it creates power outages, and its sole purpose is to cut CO2 emissions, why don't we scrap it completely and spend the money on carbon credits instead, now they are so cheap? My own view is that these are just papal indulgences, but those who know best say they have a key role to play in controlling emissions. It would certainly be cheaper than throwing money at the landed gentry and dodgy eco-businesses the way we do now.
Some points that emerge so far:
- Wind is a fleabite in the UK’s current energy mix.
- The Goodall/Lynas (GL) article is about short-term fluctuations in the fuel mix of actual electricity supply.
- GL have not examined the total effects of wind power on emissions: including the emissions from building and installing new turbines, new transmission equipment, roads and vehicles to service wind plant.
- GL say that the extra emissions arising from wind’s intermittency are small. This may be true at present although their article does not prove it with hard numbers on hours of spinning reserve, less efficient reduced-output operation etc. It won’t be true once wind power supplies an average of 20% of demand instead of 4% at present.
- Wind has contributed little or nothing to the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the UK in recent years. Read the latest official report on UK emissions here: http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/climate-change/4817-2011-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-provisional-figur.pdf. Emissions from electricity generation have fallen because gas has replaced coal, and nuclear went up in 2011. Not a single mention of wind power in the whole report. And emissions from electricity generation are actually falling more slowly than emissions from other activities anyway.
Bottom line: All those turbines all over the country and their contribution to emissions reductions, if it exists at all, is so small it is not even mentioned in the government’s official report on emissions.
Here's the definitive put down for the Goodall and Lynas Guardian blog.
http://www.thegwpf.org/gordon-hughes-response-to-goodall-lynas/