Wind Energy Does Little to Reduce CO2 Emissions

[wtmusic]

"For some years wind turbines were presented to the public as renewable energy producers that would reduce the CO2 emissions of fossil plants, because less fossil fuels would be burnt, while making the US less dependent on energy imports from unstable regions.

Wind turbine vendors, project developers, financiers, trade organizations, etc., popularized wind energy as saving the planet from global warming with PR campaigns that claimed significant CO2 reductions/kWh, and that capital costs/MW would decrease, and that wind energy costs/kWh would be at grid parity in the near future.

Apparently many people, including legislators, believed it all, because a fear-driven, heavily-subsidized, multi-billion dollar build-out of wind turbine facilities occurred.

After skepticism was expressed by technical analysts in the US, the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc., about claims regarding CO2 reductions due to wind energy during past years, the reductions have finally been more accurately quantified as a result of two studies based on measured operations data of the grids in Colorado, Texas and Ireland, all with significant wind energy penetration."

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[bananas]

1. Anti-Science Pro-Nuclear Crackpots Do Little to Reduce CO2 Emissions

[kristopher]

21. Yep.

See post 3 below for the details of what is wrong with the OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x310270#310277

[SpoonFed]

37. Hahahah +1 n/t

[GliderGuider]

2. Fascinating article! Have fun at the E/E re-education camp!

Bye-bye! :hi::hi::cry:

[bananas]

5. Quack Quack Quack!

[wtmusic]

14. Their cattle prods don't scare me...

they're powered by the wind :D

[kristopher]

3. Campaign against wind in US

26.07.2011

Campaign against wind in US
Study finds benefits of wind negligible

A study conducted by Bentek Energy of Colorado finds that the claims that wind power offsets carbon emissions are "significantly overstated and... so small as to be insignificant or too expensive to be practical." So why does the study confirm AWEA's figures for CO2 offsets?

In a study released this week by Bentek Energy, a claim reportedy made by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) comes under attack in particular, and the study's findings are making headlines in the business world, such as at Forbes. The study is not readily available online, but the firm made a copy available to Renewables International and put us in contact with the author. Those wishing to purchase a copy can contact [e-mail]; the company was not able to state a price.

The summary at Forbes hones in on an alleged AWEA estimate that, as Forbes puts it, "every megawatt-hour of electricity produced by wind turbines cut carbon dioxide emissions by 0.8 tons" – an unusual formulation, since most organizations would talk about how many tons of carbon are offset on the average. Indeed, a search online for statements made by AWEA for the number of times that "every megawatt-hour" of wind power leads us back to this study, not to any claims by AWEA.


Instead, we find more balanced assessments, such as this one...

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/campaign-against-wind-in-us/150/505/31471/

***********************************************************************************************

From the journal published by the International Electric and Electrical Engineers on the topic of the OP. This is written by a group of the worlds leading experts on wind energy grid integration.
It completely rebuts the impression that those disseminating the study in the OP are trying to create.

Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 EEE Power and Energy Magazine Master Serie

You can download for free this (normally $26 article) here:
http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

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 oper- ators 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 vari- ability 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 fos- sil 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 uncer- tainty, however, themselves consume fuel and release emis- sions, 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 previ- ous 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 oper- ate 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 emis- sions savings percentage in situation three relative to situ- ation 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.

Let's look at the final two paragraphs more closely
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.


Now please review the first article in this post that reviews the Bentek study specifically. It should make more sense.

[GliderGuider]

10. The FF industries definitely have their knives out for wind. Remember what Gandhi said:

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

It looks like wind power is moving into stage 3.

[wtmusic]

26. With the minor quibble that Gandhi was right. nt

[MADem]

4. That site is financed by SIEMENS AG--what side is THEIR bread buttered on, hmmmm?

http://theenergycollective.com/about


Always consider the source.

[wtmusic]

6. Ooh...nice catch!

http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/renewables/wind-power/wind-turbines/swt-2-3-82-vs.htm

[bananas]

11. "There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity."

That website has no credibility, especially after claiming "There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity."
Quack! Quack! Quack! It's a crackpot website.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x284853

[MADem]

15. It's called "Greenwashing" and Siemens is doing a sweet job of it

Their big money is in nuclear and conventional energy generation--any windmilling they do is purely for show--sort of like how BP changed their logo to green and yellow to make themselves "seem" more crisp and clean.

It is all bullshit. There's an outfit called "Social Media Today" that publishes/distributes this kind of shit for SIEMENS and others--it's pretty disgusting how they try to gussy up their glow-in-the-dark/stinky oil-based POV with pooh-poohs about the degree of effectiveness of alternative energy sources. They should be ashamed.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/19/chevron_social_media_today

Lovaas already contributes to another Social Media Today site, the Energy Collective, which is sponsored by Siemens, a major player in the nuclear power industry and other energy sectors. (I wrote about the Energy Collective earlier this year when it published a viral blog post arguing that the Fukushima disaster would not lead to "any significant release of radioactivity." Events quickly proved that claim wrong.)

Carey, who previously worked in advertising at the Washington Post, stressed in our interview that Chevron or other clients would not be permitted to edit contributors' blog posts or restrict access to particular people. She also said Future Mobility is being pitched to other companies, not just Chevron.

She said the phrase "content alignment to Chevron goals" was meant in the broadest sense. "If they're interested in mobility we'll devise a series of webinars on mobility," she said, as an example.


Like I said, you always have to consider the source. These guys are sleight of hand experts.

[wtmusic]

18. Either that inelegant tangle of logic, or you're just wrong.

Growing Wind Power:
The Future of Wind and the Quest for Cleaner Energy
http://theenergycollective.com/wind-power-webinar

Germany’s Renewable Energy Sources Rise to 20%
http://theenergycollective.com/robertrapier/64784/germany-s-renewable-energy-sources-rise-20-percent

The Future of Onshore and Offshore Wind Power
http://theenergycollective.com/vickykenrick/63020/future-onshore-and-offshore-wind-power

Political Will Prevents the Dawning of the Long-Predicted Solar Age
http://theenergycollective.com/david-k-thorpe/64071/it-political-will-prevents-dawning-long-predicted-solar-age

Clean Renewables and Clean Energy Storage – A Perfect Combination of Domestic Resources
http://theenergycollective.com/christine-hertzog/62238/clean-renewables-and-clean-energy-storage-perfect-combination-domestic-resou

I know...mwahahaha. All part of the master plan. :eyes:

[bananas]

19. Great post - thanks for that updated info! ..."content alignment to Chevron goals"...

Hope people take the time to read it.

[MADem]

22. So do I--I'm getting sick of wingnuttery dressed up with side dishes of soy and granola--

these corporate tools have one goal, and one goal only, and that's to maintain/increase their profit margin while sustaining the status quo. Heaven forfend that they might have to invest in new technology and re-engineer how we do things. That would cut into their "Quick Money Now" focus.

[wtmusic]

24. Ah, you must certainly have some specific objections to the studies in the OP

otherwise you wouldn't dismiss them with such flippant arrogance.

What are your objections?

[bananas]

28. You mean "objections to the wingnuttery in the OP"

Please try to be accurate.
:rofl:

[MADem]

30. I've made it quite clear what my objections are--and you reply with more shit from a tainted site.

Grow up.

Give it up.

This site you cite is complete and total garbage, funded by one of the largest nuke/conventional energy suppliers in the world.

They're outed. So are you--either as naive or complicit. Pick one.

[wtmusic]

32. Then it should be easy, but apparently it's not.

When facts prove you wrong, you shoot the messenger.

Cognitive dissonance must suck.

[kristopher]

34. Notice you're not interested in reading post #3. Why not?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=310270&mesg_id=310277

[Nederland]

41. Because it is not relevant

Your post does not address the data described in the OP, its just a cut and paste of the same old stuff we've seen a hundred times before. If you have a criticism of the data described in the OP's link, feel free to present it.

[kristopher]

45. I invite everyone to read it for themselves and decide.

The findings in the Bentek study are completely consistent with the IEEE article's explanation. The second article explains how the presentation of the Bentek data in their study has been skewed to cloak the actual significance of the data in order to pull a Koch style attack on renewables.

"A study conducted by Bentek Energy of Colorado finds that the claims that wind power offsets carbon emissions are "significantly overstated and... so small as to be insignificant or too expensive to be practical." So why does the study confirm AWEA's figures for CO2 offsets?"

AWEA = American Wind Energy Association

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=310270&mesg_id=310277

[Nederland]

46. I agree

If everyone reads those links for themselves they will see that the IEEE link is to a study that deals with simulations not reality, and your other link is a long whiny rant about the fact that the Bentek study used an average 0.8 tons per MWh instead of 0.6 tons per MWh for a few of its calculations.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SpoonFed]

38. well said. n/t

[bananas]

27. It's disgusting - and it is "wingnuttery" nt

[bananas]

29. "These guys are sleight of hand experts." - k&r nt

[Nederland]

43. Their big money is in nuclear and conventional energy generation? Bullshit

From their 2010 annual report:

<snip>

Overall, Siemens’ strong second half-year pushed new orders for all of fiscal 2010 above the prior-year level. Of the company’s 14 Divisions, Renewable Energy had the strongest order growth. Siemens’ revenue, which also stabilized in the course of fiscal 2010, was only slightly below the prior-year level. The company expanded its business in ecofriendly products and solutions. Revenue from its Environmental Portfolio rose to about €28 billion from some €27 billion in fiscal 2009, on a comparable basis.

<snip>

Siemens AG (Berlin and Munich) is a global powerhouse in electronics and electrical engineering, operating in the industry, energy and healthcare sectors. For over 160 years, Siemens has stood for technological excellence, innovation, quality, reliability and internationality. The company is the world’s largest provider of environmental technologies, generating some €28 billion – more than one-third of its total revenue – from green products and solutions. In fiscal 2010, which ended on September 30, 2010, revenue totaled €76 billion and net income €4.1 billion. At the end of September 2010, Siemens had around 405,000 employees worldwide.

<snip>

http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/?press=/en/pressrelease/2010/corporate_communication/2010-q4/axx20101113.htm


Saying that Siemens renewable energy programs are "purely for show" is complete an utter hogwash. It is in fact the core of their business plan--unlike nuclear--which they are considering getting out of entirely:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704547804576260953845777640.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-10/siemens-sells-stake-in-nuclear-joint-venture-to-france-s-areva.html

[MADem]

48. "Order growth" does not translate into "gross profit."

If you sell one widget one year, and two widgets the next, you've had a shitload of "order growth." Sounds good--means little.

It doesn't mean that the division with the "most growth" is the one bringing in the most money. A third of their "energy sector" activity is in renewable energy, but that's not where the cash is rolling in (which could be an incentive for ginning up a website where renewables are trashed). In their most recent quarterly report available online, this is how they characterized profit in their ENERGY sector:

At the Energy Sector, new orders remained at the level of the comparable prior-year period, while revenue increased five percent. The Sector again profited from a strong development at the Fossil Power Generation Division.

It's the stinky stuff that is still bringing home the bacon for them in terms of energy. They also make money off of healthcare products and industrial applications, like trains and streetcars.

[GliderGuider]

8. Ah-hah. The spin in the article was so obvious, it had to be coming from some corp like that. nt

[physioex]

17. And it has 'Faux News' contributors on the panel....EOM

[GliderGuider]

7. To be fair, he is looking only at the current state of the art.

Introducing wind power into a grid that's not designed for it causes problems, as he demonstrates. However, this is no reason to remove wind from energy policies in favour of gas. It's entirely conceivable that grids could be designed to accept wind power without having coal plants cycling up and down all over the landscape. Not probably,IMO, but certainly conceivable.

The fossil fueled CCGT alternative he is apparently promoting is an ecocidal solution. Better to use our petroleum residue to tar and feather him.

[bananas]

12. "There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity."

Quack! Quack! Quack!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x284853

[wtmusic]

13. Cycling CCGT up and down is worse than just running it all the time.

and isn't it time we considered sustainable alternatives for tar-and-feathering? :D

http://www.sustainableadhesive.com/about.html

[GliderGuider]

16. At least the feathers are sustainable.

If this "new-fangled" idea of using the wind and the sun instead of carbon to power human activity is to succeed, we will need to re-engineer a lot of grids. That's okay, though - we're tool-monkeys, re-engineering is what we do best: "If at first you don't succeed, re-engineer the technology and keep on going."

[wtmusic]

23. Better:

"If at first you don't succeed, examine the potential of future success and pursue the most likely avenues to bring it about, while avoiding throwing money into bottomless, feelgood pits with the environmental health of the planet following in close proximity."

[GliderGuider]

25. Unfortunately, that was too long for a good mission statement. The Management Committee revised it:

"If at first you don't succeed, keep doing it anyway."

[wtmusic]

31. Wind has been very successful as a tax dodge and a prop for natural gas

which is exactly why T. Boone Pickens wants to "keep doing it anyway".

I can't speak for the unwitting tools he drags along with him.

[kristopher]

33. Why don't you address the rebuttal in post #3?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=310270&mesg_id=310277

[MADem]

36. He can't.

He's on a mission....a mission to prop up fission!!!

And to propagate the fossil fuel fancies of SIEMENS corporation by tossing a 'greenwashing' web site at us like an oily, smelly bomb.

No one's buying it, so he's resorting to snark...and avoidance of your cogent link.

[Nederland]

42. Your post #3 is not a rebuttal

The paper in your link derives its conclusion from simulations:

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.

http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf


In contrast, the studies referred to in the OP are an analysis of actual utility data:

After skepticism was expressed by technical analysts in the US, the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc., about claims regarding CO2 reductions due to wind energy during past years, the reductions have finally been more accurately quantified as a result of two studies based on measured operations data of the grids in Colorado, Texas and Ireland, all with significant wind energy penetration."

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29


As usual, you prefer the results of a simulation to reality because it conforms to your beliefs.

[kristopher]

44. I invite everyone to read it for themselves and decide.

The findings in the Bentek study are completely consistent with the IEEE article's explanation. The second article explains how the presentation of the Bentek data in their study has been skewed to cloak the actual significance of the data in order to pull a Koch style attack on renewables.

"A study conducted by Bentek Energy of Colorado finds that the claims that wind power offsets carbon emissions are "significantly overstated and... so small as to be insignificant or too expensive to be practical." So why does the study confirm AWEA's figures for CO2 offsets?"

AWEA = American Wind Energy Association

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=310270&mesg_id=310277

[kristopher]

20. The OP premise is a false presentation of the relevant facts

Documented here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x310270#310277

[qb]

9. Yeah... and solar energy causes cancer.

:sarcasm:

[SpoonFed]

39. and that new turbine over there on the hill...

looks ugly and what is worse, it seems to be withering my johnson!
:sarcasm:

[NickB79]

40. I like how they sell a new GE gas turbine at the end as an alternative to wind

Smooth marketing campaign they've got there :eyes:

[wtmusic]

47. Of course! GE, the third largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world

either wants to fail or just wants to make you THINK they're failing! Mwahahahahaha...:D

[MADem]

49. That's because, per their most recent online quarterly report, "fossil fuels" bring home the bacon

http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/?press=/en/pressrelease/2010/corporate_communication/2010-q4/axx20101113.htm

The Energy Sector made the largest contribution, generating profit of €3.6 billion – a seven percent increase year-over-year. The Sector’s fossil power plant business and, to a lesser extent, its business in power transmission systems were the major drivers.