Saturday
Mar022013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The great still
Mar 2, 2013 Energy: wind Commenters have been noting the preposterously low output of the wind fleet at the moment - currently generating about 0.4GW or a tenth of one percent of demand.
The environmentalist argument is that by use of smart grids we can import wind power generated in other parts of Europe (I think this is because the spirit of European cooperation will inspire them to offer it to us rather than using it themselves.
However, a look at the current windspeed map for Europe suggests there may be a flaw in this plan:
;)
Update on Mar 3, 2013 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Last night wind generation fell to 0.029GW.
;)
Reader Comments (133)
Having made the decision to go for renewables, (about which we can argue endlessly) one thing on which we may agree is that the government has placed too much emphasis on maximising wind farm capacity; with too little attention to overcoming the intermittency problem.
Under development are energy storage technologies such as batteries, compressed air, liquid air and pumped storage.
Increased investment in tidal barrages, water turbines, wave energy systems and solar PV would also help smooth out renewable energy flow.
EM, while at the moment the public are meekly allowing the government to piddle about with renewables, happy in the knowledge that we have power, even though it's expensive. Once that power becomes unreliable, that attitude will change. It will even change as the price continues to rise. At that point it won't be inevitable we will have renewables at all. UKIP might be a protest party now but can you imagine the kind of protest vote that would follow a year of blackouts? UKIP will promise a return to the good old days. None of the other parties would have a leg to stand on.
How long would it be before AGW matters to the public after that?
EM -
"Having made the decision to go for renewables, (about which we can argue endlessly) one thing on which we may agree is that the government has placed too much emphasis on maximising wind farm capacity; with too little attention to overcoming the intermittency problem.
Under development are energy storage technologies such as batteries, compressed air, liquid air and pumped storage.
Increased investment in tidal barrages, water turbines, wave energy systems and solar PV would also help smooth out renewable energy flow."
Show us the numbers EM; you know, the sort of real numbers that will help us decide on "the tradeoff between short term protection of our lifestyle and long term damage."
For starters - How long is it (in non "deep time") before the graphic and figures at the start of this post will be overcome by the increased investments you propose? How much long term damage will be incurred/avoided in getting there?
Please, take this opportunity to help us - demonstrate to us how scientific debate can inform our decision making in the here and now!
Entropic man (Mar 3, 2013 at 10:50 PM): "If you burned that lot [847 billion tons of coal] you would release 1,24 trillion tons of CO2. Thats four times our total release since 1750, eight times what we've released since 1975."
I beg to differ with your calculations. First, with regard to what's been released, the reference you cite (which goes through 2008) shows emissions of 213 Gt of *carbon* since 1975; that's 780 Gt of CO2 using the 44/12 ratio. So your figures would indicate emissions of about 1.5 times that value, not 8 times. [However, I think that's low; see below. I make it about 3 times the emissions from 1975-2008.]
You also wrote of a "minimum of 4,4C warming from coal burning alone". I tried to reproduce the calculation. Using an example from here, combustion of one ton of coal results in about 2.86 tons of CO2. [It varies with the type of coal, so please don't take the three significant digits in that figure as an indication of precision.] Thus, combustion of 874 Gt coal would result in around 2400 Gt CO2 emission. As the increase in atmospheric CO2 is around half of emissions (cf. IPCC AR4 Fig 7-3), the net increase to the atmosphere would be about 1200 Gt CO2 -- which matches your figure. Good so far!
All else being equal, the additional 1200 Gt CO2 would increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 160 ppmv. Taking current pCO2 as 400 ppmv, this would increase concentration by about a factor of 1.4, or half a doubling. IPCC AR4's mean estimate of equilibrium sensitivity is 3 K/doubling, although more recent literature supports lower values. Even at 3K/doubling, I don't see how you arrive at a "minimum of 4,4C warming from coal burning alone".
The aerosols from burning all the coal "soon" would cool the planet.
Anthropogenic SO2 dropped from 1975 - 2000 and temps went up.
SO2 started to climb along with China's coal burning and temps stopped climbing.
Burning coal would PREVENT AGW.
Save the planet EM. Burn the coal.
TinyCO2, Not Banned Here.
And how long would UKIPs cloud cuckoo land last?
Peak conventional oil passed in 2006, with production sustained in the short term by deep water drilling, tar sands and shale oil. The era of cheap oil has passed.
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/energy/2010/11/101109-peak-oil-iea-world-energy-outlook/
Shale gas is already showing signs of becoming a gas bubble.
http://cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Documents/March%20033111%20presentations/Marcellus%20WatkinsGlen%201%2003%2029%2011.pdf
Compare Figure 1 and Figure 3 of this 2004 report
http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/cost_generation_commentary.pdf
with the equivalent 2012 values in Chart 3 here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65713/6883-electricity-generation-costs.pdf
Renewable costs are static and the rest are climbing to meet them.
The long term reality is that it will be impossible to return to the "good old days" of cheap energy and hard to maintain current electricity supply levels based on fossil fuel imports. Regardless of economics, renewables will be, in the long term, all that will be left.
It's even worse.
I have a camera, a Nikon 1 V1, that will take the usual still photos, or at the flick of a button, will take HD video.
When I look at still photos I have taken of wind farms, no blades are turning. But when I flick to video, sometimes I see that some blades are rotating. This has been tested for a year now, same result each time.
I's like to know the smart technology that picks up when I switch from still to video, so they can make some rotors turn. If they are smart enough to do that, beware of their propaganda skills.
Entropic Man,1.0, opposed mass production of buggy whips for fear that the world would be smothered in manure when the oiks acquired their own horses.
@entropic man
' If the median IPCC prediction for cAGW is correct , that's a minimum of 4,4C warming from coal burning alone on top of what we've already started.
If cAGW is wrong you can burn what you like.
That's the bet. Our descendants collect the winnings or the forfeit.'
That's not the bet at all. Unless you have somehow come to the conclusion that whatever decision we make now is irrevecoble. That a 'conventional' power station once built could never be switched off. And that the lead time on windmills is so long that we must install them now in case we need them two hundred years down the line.
In the case of conventional power, the design life seems to be about 40 years, and for windmills it is claimed to be 25 - though many believe it may be little more than half of that.
So by the time 2300 comes around we will be using about the great great great grandson of today's.power station and the great great great great great great great great grandson of today's windmills.
At each of these generational changes we once more have the opportunity to choose how to plot our future. That is another fifteen or twenty decision points before we get to the eventual outcome of your bet.
Your 'long-term' thinking has blinded you to the practical realities of today's decisions.
Entropic refers us to the following report to justify his claim that 'renewable costs are fixed, but conventional costs are rising to join them'
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65713/6883-electricity-generation-costs.pdf
I read it with interest.
One of the large figures placed against 'conventional' sources is called 'carbon costs'. These are considered to be large for 'conventional' power but zero for renewables.
DECC do not seem to have taken into account the latest warning that windmills sited in peaty areas are actually nett atmospheric carbon generators, not savers. There should be a large 'carbon cost' associated with windmills as well
'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html
More on 'carbon costs' here.
https://www.gov.uk/carbon-valuation
I think this EM should not be taken seriously, he is just making facetious comments like any troll.
Suggesting PV as a technology for helping out intermittency is laughable. PV is even worse than wind energy for intermittency. The capacity factor is 10%, thus with variations between zero and 100% contribution.
Suggesting batteries for helping out: do your sums. Check how many batteries are required to come through the great still we are having now in Europe. If all wind energy countries would have to install batteries to come trough a week of no wind there would not be enough lead available to make the batteries.
Suggesting tidal barrages: check out the Barrage de la Rance. The second largest in the world. Very expensive to make and delivering 64 MW average over the year, with a capacity factor of 26%.
I could go on, but will not.
EM is a typical green troll, pretending to know it all and causing people to waste their time to come back to issues already covered in the past on this blog.
EM - I didn't mention ukip.
I asked for the numbers which support your assertions on reducing the intermittent nature of wind power.
Solid Energy is a NZ company. It was heavily involved in mining coal. It was successful and making good money and employing lots of ex-pat Brits. It has just declared it has debts of 400 million NZ dollars.
It invested heavily in renewable energies. It purchased a bio fuels company who were producing 100,000 litres a year. In it's prospectus it stated it would produce 60 million litres a year by 2012. The most it ever produced was 2 million. It has shed a huge number of miners. In 2000 it had 23 staff earning over 100,000 NZ dollars. In 2012 it had 430 earning over 100,000 NZ dollars. I wonder how many of these were experts in renewable energy!!!
@Martin A,Julian Flood
Thanks for the update on diesel generators, I wonder how many are tested regularly and how many have had their diesel stolen. Heating oil theft is a bit of an issue in rural areas. Many standby systems fail to start when the power goes off if they aren't regularly serviced and tested. Maybe the last time these were checked was in the early 90s.
I seem to remember someone called Entropic Man at the BBC; Richard Black in particular; in the days when they allowed comments on contentious articles.
Wind power has a bit of a history of failure and being labour intensive does it not. Clippers the peak of 19th century technology could manage about 250 miles per day with barely 100 tons of cargo with a crew of 25-30 people. Compare this to Emma Maersk a modern container ship, 170,000 tons capacity 15000 20ft containers crew 15-20 cruise speed 31mph (730 miles per day) Just imagine how many clippers it who take to replace this one container ship. Would there e any wind left for offshore windfarms :-).
Dear all, it is quite obvious that our resident Zen Master of Deeptime and Peakresources, AKA Entropic man, is of such a higher level of consciousness it is impossible for our paltry intellects to engage him in meaningful discussion.
So let's not bother. In other words do not feed the troll.
EM:
"Bring everyone up to our consumption levels and you'll go throught that 814 billion tons of coal worlwide in 166 years."
Outed!
You do not want poor people (Africa, Asia, elsewhere) to have access to cheap and reliable energy. 'They' must be prevented from aspiring to, let alone attaining 'our' consumption levels.
I'll call you a racist, to start off with...
I have pointed out many times, the unrealistic proposition that the UK will be able to import power when a blocking high is sitting over the UK. Such a blocking high is not restricted to the UK and affects much of Eurpoe to more or less extent. Much of Europe is therefore shivering under conditions similar or worse than that being experienced in the UK putting a strain on the nergy supplies of those other European countries.
There are only 2 countries in Europe with secure energy, namely Norway withs its hydro, and France with its nuclear. These 2 countries cannot supply excess energy to every other European country that requires energy to make up shortages brought about by deficiencies in their own green energy generation.
First of all, there are preferences. Norway will feed the rest of Scandinavia, in preference to the UK. There is no way that Norwegians would see the Danes or the Swedes (no matter what jokes they have about these people) freeze and die by diverting much needed energy to the UK in preference to supplying Denmark and Sweden with that energy. I have lived in Norway and Sweden and I know their close ties.
As regards France, no doubt there will be a bidding war for their precious resource. In this regard, wealthy Germany and the Netherlands will secure French surplus energy in preference to the UK since the UK will not be able to compete on financial terms, and of course Germany's chancellor will pull every string to ensure that the might of German industry is not shut down due to a lack of domestic energy brought about by German's defective green energy policy. Further, France has a close connection with Belgium and Luxembourg, on a familiar basis. Again french citizens would wish to see relatives in those countries getting French excess power, before that power is sold to the UK.
The upshot is that the UK will be low down in the pecking order for surplus energy being produced by Norway and/or France. The Russians no doubt will have a field day with their gas.
The experience of winter 2010, graphically illustrates the folly of wind power and it is easy to envisage what would have happened had the UK been reliant for some 30% of it's energy (about 17GW) from wind.
During that winter for a period of about 4 to 6 weeks, wind was producing only about 1 to 3% of installed capacity (this would on a 17GW installed capacity amount to a giddy 340MW) with a few days peaking at 8% of installed capacity (say about 1.3GW assuming an installed capacity of 17GW). There would need to be rolling brownout of between 7 to 12 hours a day. A total disaster especially since so many roads were impassabkle due to the failures of local government to grit, and the lack of grit and snow ploughs. The numer of cold weather deaths especially in the elderly and vunerable (early premature deaths) would have been horrendous.
Unfortunately, the politicians have not woken up to this disaster which will soon be waiting to happen.
SandyS -
Maybe - but I had dealings with BT in the 1970's and they took security (of everything) quite seriously then and I doubt secuirty is taken less seriously now. Just my guess.
BTW I had an IXT in my office in 1984.
Mar 4, 2013 at 10:18 AM | richard verney
What an excellent post Richard! May I suggest that you send it, as an open letter, to DECC, copied to the Prime Minister? (and the Daily Mail, etc..)
Richard Verney - I think you are wrong about France. They have a lack of spare capacity and it hits them in the winter when temps drop and electric heating is using a lot of power. There was a recent report which I'm sure you can find with some googling.
An interesting presentation on Norwegian hydro (which includes some refs. to total stored energy) comes up if you google on "07StatkraftAlne".
Bish - please can you post an update to the wind map and energy figures?
"update to the wind map and energy figures"
http://www.ukenergywatch.org/Electricity/Realtime
No need to worry, everyone..!
We've got a Department of Energy and Climate Change..!
Now - enough of that sort of talk - that's just plain uncharitable...
Thanks Roger - I was also interested in the summed wind output over the past 48hrs; all the tree tops I've looked at have been dead still. I'll do some googling later.
Not Banned Yet @ 1:46.
BMreports has 'last 24 hours':
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
NBY - I'd be interested to look it up if you could say what I should search on.
My voltage in Normandy often drops from its normal 225 to 207 or so when it's very cold, presumably because of the widespread use of electrical heating. Never sure if this is simply poor regulation at the local transformer or whether it is a form of demand control. Perhaps they are both the same thing.
Adrian - thanks, I'd had a look at BMreports but not found it. Site response was very slow - I'll try again later.
Martin A - this should give you a start:
http://www.rte-france.com/en/news-cases/news/rte-publishes-the-2012-french-electricity-report-1
Latest report is in French only - earlier ones have been in English too. Reuters carried a news story on it, as I recall.
Re: NBY
2013-03-02 16:00 to 2013-03-03 16:00 2,307 MWh
2013-03-03 16:00 to 2013-03-04 16:00 18,049 MWh
NBY, this site is another alternative - I can never get BM Reports to work either.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Terry S and Stun - thank you :-)
I'd not seen the gridwatch site before - very nice. And there is a solid looking paper on many of the issues surrounding renewables:
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf
You might want to check out the Eirgrid site as well. They give a nice overview of the fuel mix and you can see how intermittent wind energy is. It is not a real-time overview, but the Irish doe have a 16% average wind energy contribution. The funny thing is that when they have increasing wind contribution, their CO2 output increases with it.
Paste the link below in your browser and select any month. Scroll down to the coloured graphic.
http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/all-islandwindandfuelmixreport/
Martin A - this should give you a start:
http://www.rte-france.com/en/news-cases/news/rte-publishes-the-2012-french-electricity-report-1
Latest report is in French only - earlier ones have been in English too. Reuters carried a news story on it, as I recall.
Mar 4, 2013 at 3:34 PM not banned yet
Thank you. Found and downloaded it.