Why power from the wind generates more CO2 than burning natural gas

[wtmusic]

"...However, sometimes Norway and Sweden refuse to take Danish wind power because reservoirs are already full, or are going to be full due to snow and rain fall, etc. In that case Vestas, using its computerized control center that controls ALL wind turbines in Denmark, would reduce the output of a percentage of them (by feathering the blades or stopping them), according to pre-planned sequences. This MO is much easier than requiring hundreds of small district heating/electrical plants or a few big central power plants to reduce THEIR outputs. In case of little snow and rain fall, hydro plant reservoir levels may be low and any wind power from Denmark, if available, would be useful to pump water from lower reservoirs to upper reservoirs.

All this back-and-forth gymnastics is inefficient and uneconomical, as various studies have shown. One indication of this inefficiency: Denmark has the highest residential electric rates in Europe, whereas its commercial rates are kept at about one third of the residential rates for international competitive reasons. France, 80% nuclear, has one of the lowest electric rates in Europe."

<>

"Implementing CCGT (combined cycle gas turbine) power instead of wind power appears to be the best choice, by far. The enormous ADDITIONAL capital costs and annual owning and O&M costs for the wind power and cycling facilities could be much more effectively used for investments in increased energy efficiency which would reduce CO2 far more effectively per invested dollar than either CCGT or wind power."

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/57905/wind-power-and-co2-emissions?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[kristopher]

1. More nuke industry BS?

Doesn’t Wind Power Need Backup Generation? Isn’t More Fossil Fuel Burned with Wind Than Without, Due to Backup Requirements?

In a power system, it is necessary to maintain a continuous balance between production and consumption. System operators deploy controllable generation to follow the change in total demand, not the variation from a single generator or customer load. When wind is added to the system, the variability in the net load becomes the operating target for the system operator. It is not necessary and, indeed, it would be quite costly for grid operators to follow the variation in generation from a single generating plant or customer load.

“Backup” generating plants dedicated to wind plants — or to any other generation plant or load for that matter — are not required, and would actually be a poor and unnecessarily costly use of power-generation resources.

Regarding whether the addition of wind generation results in more combustion of fossil fuels, a wind-generated kilowatthour displaces a kilowatthour that would have been generated by another source—usually one that burns a fossil fuel. The wind-generated kilowatthour therefore avoids the fuel consumption and emissions associated with that fossil-fuel kilowatthour. The incremental reserves (spinning or nonspinning) required by wind’s variability and uncertainty, however, themselves consume fuel and release emissions, so the net savings are somewhat reduced. But what quantity of reserves is required? Numerous studies conducted to date—many of which have been summarized in previous wind - specific special issues of IEEE Power & Energy Magazine — have found that the reserves required by wind are only a small fraction of the aggregate wind generation and vary with the level of wind output. Generally, some of these reserves are spinning and some are nonspinning. The regulating and load-following plants could be forced to operate at a reduced level of efficiency, resulting in increased fuel consumption and increased emissions per unit of output.

A conservative example serves to illustrate the fuel-consumption and emissions impacts stemming from wind’s regulation requirements. Compare three situations:
1) a block of energy is provided by fossil-fueled plants;
2) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that require no incremental reserves; and
3) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that do have incremental reserve requirements. It is assumed that the average fleet fossil-fuel efficiency is unchanged between situations one and two. This might not be precisely correct, but a sophisticated operational simulation is required to address this issue quantitatively. In fact, this has been done in several studies, which bear out the general conclusions reached in this simple example.

In situation one, an amount of fuel is burned to produce the block of energy. In situation two, all of that fuel is saved and all of the associated emissions are avoided. In situation three, it is assumed that 3% of the fossil generation is needed to provide reserves, all of these reserves are spinning, and that this generation incurs a 25% efficiency penalty. The corresponding fuel consumption necessary to provide the needed reserves is then 4% of the fuel required to generate the entire block of energy. Hence, the actual fuel and emissions savings percentage in situation three relative to situation one is 96% rather than 100%. The great majority of initially estimated fuel savings does in fact occur, however, and the notion that wind’s variations would actually increase system fuel consumption does not withstand scrutiny....


This special issue by the IEEE journal is as credible a source of information as can be found on these frequently asked questions related to wind power. Certainly it is more reliable than the anti-renewable bloggers you love to read.
List of authors:
Michael Milligan is a principal analyst with NREL, in Golden, Colorado.
Kevin Porter is a senior analyst with Exeter Associates Inc., in Columbia, Maryland.
Edgar DeMeo is president of Renewable Energy Consulting Services, in Palo Alto, California.
Paul Denholm is a senior energy analyst with NREL, in Golden, Colorado.
Hannele Holttinen is a senior research scientist with VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.
Brendan Kirby is a consultant for NREL, in Golden, Colorado.
Nicholas Miller is a director at General Electric, in Schenectady, New York.
Andrew Mills is a senior research associate with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in Berkeley, California.
Mark O’Malley is a professor, School of Electrical, Electronic and Mechanical Engineering of University College Dublin, in Ireland.
Matthew Schuerger is a principal consultant with Energy Systems Consulting Services LLC, in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Lennart Soder is a professor of electric power systems at the Royal Institute of Technology, in Stockholm, Sweden.

Download the entire open access report here: http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

[kristopher]

19. The OP article is an invalid argument manufactured to assist the nuclear industry

The author has a history of not being very rigorous with his data selection (he knowingly uses false data) so I usually don't even bother to dig into the details of the arguments themselves when the nuclear fans here post his work.

First, it is absolutely correct that energy efficiency provides the most bang for the buck.

Second, the paper seems to use standard emissions data that is valid.

Third, it is the nature of the argument itself that is the problem in this case. It presumes that wind and energy efficiency are mutually exclusive - they are not, they are complementary. In order for wind to be a successful source of energy, it NEEDS conservation and efficiency. The reverse is also true, in order for maximum conservation and efficiency to be achieved we NEED a system that provides strong positive motivation for making the effort and distributed renewables are that system.

The economic model of large scale generation in a market system is antithetical to the goal of energy conservation and energy efficiency. The providers of electricity from large scale generators have a very strong profit motive to push for policies that obstruct energy conservation and energy efficiency policies. Simply put, the more electricity they sell the more money they make. It is therefore part of the goal of achieving energy efficiency to build out renewables, moving to distributed generation based on renewables is considered to be an essential element to actually achieve energy conservation and efficiency improvements on a large scale.

Fourth, the author implicitly assumes either that a) end goal carbon reductions will be achieved with a combination of natural gas and energy efficiency; or some other mechanism will present itself to move us to the next stage of carbon reductions. It isn't possible to build a sustainable low carbon energy infrastructure with a focus on efficiency and natural gas, and waiting to deploy renewables fails to account for the ramp-up phase of manufacturing.

What that means is that while the paper may be *internally valid* (true if you only consider the contents of the paper and accept all of its suppositions), it is not externally valid when compared to the problem it is proposing a solution for and the actual variables related to that problem that must be taken into account.


Link to OP paper: http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/57905/wind-power-and-co2-emissions?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

Before the internet the role of supplying talking points for right wing print, talk-radio and television media was fulfilled by right wing think tanks like AEI and the Heritage Foundation. Now, there has developed a network of bloggers that produce the same type of analysis where the "analyst" (in this case AKA "propagandist") starts with a desired outcome and constructs plausible sounding screeds that can be pointed to by the corporate interests funding them as proof of the need for policies which promote that corporation's welfare.

The fact that the author promotes both energy efficiency and nuclear power, and the fact that he has in the past taken completely false data sourced from nuclear bloggers and used it as legitimate data demonstrates that the purpose isn't real analysis. No, the purpose of his group is to provide fodder for the nuclear disinformation machine.

The context that the nuclear industry is operating under right now must be remembered because that is what prompts the writing of papers like this. We've seen the grand nuclear revival built around a climate change greenwashing fizzle. The most fundamental problem is that the industry lied about the economics of new-build when they started their push for nuclear power expansion. It is so expensive and takes so long to complete projects that the risk of default in the electric markets of today approaches 75%. That means it isn't able to be funded.

The longer the industry has to wait the worse the competitive landscape looks given current economics and ever more policies that mandate energy efficiency and greater use of renewables. They have to alter that trajectory if they are going to have any hope of actually capturing the market share the corporations behind nuclear are desperate for. That is what the paper in the OP is ACTUALLY about.

[TexasProgresive]

2. What you posted doesn't explain your title

I suppose if I clicked on the link it would but it would make sense for you to have posted the paragraphs that explain that claim.

[wtmusic]

7. Here you go.

For Combined cycle gas turbine vs. wind power

Net CO2 emissions reduction = 27,156 GWh/yr x (1.0 NEEG average - 1.298 x 0.726) lb of CO2/kWh = 1.57 billion lb of CO2/yr #

Energy generation / CO2 output. Wind power generates more CO2 than natural gas (CCGT).

All at the link.

[Kolesar]

3. A bunch of paragraphs piled up on each other and not a thesis statement in sight

That author could use some training in writing.
His use of jargon and overuse of abbreviations is a fright.

I read 1/3 of it, saw what's left, then closed the browser.

[wtmusic]

8. Don't blame it on the writing if it's too technical for you

some things don't translate well to soundbites.

[Kolesar]

11. It's shit...eom

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Misleading title - that post says investing in CCGT reduces overall CO2 cheaper than new wind power

Whether the figures are realistic, it would take a lot of examination and calculation to check. But the conclusion is that it's cheaper to build new CCGT plants (which seems to imply that there is constant demand for all the heat from a CCGT plant available; though perhaps the calculation does allow for times at which it's not needed - I couldn't see that in a brief scan) and increase efficiency (thus cutting CO2 output) than build new wind power capacity.

But saying "power from the wind generates more CO2 than burning natural gas" is a misleading twist on that.

[wtmusic]

6. Not at all. Read the link.

Sorry I couldn't wrap up a complicated subject in a brief scan for you. :eyes:

CCGT (combined cycle gas turbine)

Net CO2 emissions reduction = 27,156 GWh/yr x (1.0 NEEG average - 1.298 x 0.726) lb of CO2/kWh = 1.57 billion lb of CO2/yr #

Energy generation / CO2 output. Wind power generates more CO2 than natural gas (CCGT).

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Yes; I suggest you read the link

WIND POWER COMPARED WITH CCGT POWER
Wind Power Facility With Cycling Facility
...
Net CO2 emissions reduction = 27,156 GWh/yr x (1.0 NEEG average - 0.419) lb C02/kWh = 15.78 billion lb of CO2/yr #

CCGT Power Facility Only
...
Net CO2 emissions reduction = 27,156 GWh/yr x (1.0 NEEG average - 1.298 x 0.726) lb of CO2/kWh = 1.57 billion lb of CO2/yr #

The CO2 reductions are more for the wind facility. The difference is the extra cost of the wind power one; what the conclusion says, which you yourself quoted in the OP, is that this money could, instead, be used for other energy efficiency measures which would reduce overall CO2 more. It doesn't attempt to quantify that, though.

[wtmusic]

10. I stand corrected.

"With unlimited resources spent foolishly, wind power produces less CO2 than CCGT."

Better?

[jpak]

5. unreccing for delusional nonsense

yup

[elocs]

12. UnRec for the OP's unwillingness to explain so the average DUer can understand,

and for the smart-ass remark: "Don't blame it on the writing if it's too technical for you".

The point of posting on DU is to communicate an idea or opinion so it may be understood. If you cannot do that, the save it.l

[madokie]

13. I second that

I unrec for the same reason

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madokie]

15. You're spot on with your observation

[SpoonFed]

20. Second time recently,

that a post of mine that has been considered worth of praise by a fellow DUer has been deleted by the moderator. Apparently making a valid point and also stating my opinion about the credibility of certain other DUers after observing their behaviour for months, isn't playing by the rules.

Does somebody I've pointed out as being a shill have to complain to get my factual posts deleted?
Or are the mods just thoroughly enthralled with E/E like the rest of us?

[Nihil]

22. You made a factual post? And I missed it? A once in a lifetime event like that?

Maybe your definition of "factual" and "valid" are as erroneous
as your use of "shill"?

:eyes:

[SpoonFed]

23. thanks for keeping things civil and not attacking me personally...

you also raise some valid points about CCGT/wind power for CO2 emission, so thanks for contributing your brilliant insight.

:popcorn:

[Nihil]

24. Well, it's only fair ...

... in the light of the quality your own contributions ...

:hi:

[Nederland]

17. Translation

Seems like a technical and design issues to me.

Translation: Reality isn't matching up with what Jacobson fanboys claim is possible.

[kestrel91316]

16. Disingenuous, to say the least. Your sock is getting loose, NN.

[Ready4Change]

18. "could be much more effectively used for investments in increased energy efficiency"

"could be much more effectively used for investments in increased energy efficiency"

That's the key part. The article is saying that the additional expense of wind/CCGT over NG burning plants COULD, in a hypothetical world, be used for increasing efficiencies, which COULD reduce energy requirements, and which COULD reduce GHG's to a greater degree than would those wind/CCGT assets.

OR

Those saving COULD be used to boost the bottom lines of the entrenched power companies in the form of enhanced profit margins.

History indicates which side of that OR this would spin to. Time after time, faced with the choice between whats right and what's profitable, power companies chose profits. Their stock holders won't allow them to do anything else, and short sighted 'drill baby drill' consumers aren't any better. This is a situation where the free market will drive us right over a cliff.

[SpoonFed]

21. Well put.

TEPCO could have the situation at Fukushima under control any day now, too.