WIND-POWER: INORDINATELY EXPENSIVE AND INEFFECTIVE AT CUTTING CO2 EMISSIONS

[rondurrans]

"Energy experts warn that unwarranted support for wind-power is hindering genuinely cleaner energy

The focus on wind-power, driven by the renewables targets, is preventing Britain from effectively reducing CO2 emissions, while crippling energy users with additional costs, according to a new Civitas report. The report finds that wind-power is unreliable and requires back-up power stations to be available in order to maintain a consistent electricity supply to households and businesses. This means that energy users pay twice: once for the window-dressing of renewables, and again for the fossil fuels that the energy sector continues to rely on. Contrary to the implied message of the Government's approach, the analysis shows that wind-power is not a low-cost way of reducing emissions.


Electricity Costs: the folly of wind-power, by economist Ruth Lea, uses Government-commissioned estimates of the costs of electricity generation in the UK to calculate the most cost-effective technologies. When all costs are included, gas-fired power is the most cost-efficient method of generating electricity in the short-term, while nuclear power stations become the most cost-efficient in the medium-term."

Full Report:-

http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/recent.php

[martin]

A swift Google came up with -

" if we went on the assumption that most of Civitas’ work has a right-wing bias which is likely to be reflected in similarly inclined outlets such as the Daily Mail and Telegraph and so on. But even this simple assertion is problematic: Civitas sees itself as independent of political parties, while others might view it as ideologically driven to the detriment of the objectivity of its analysis. It could also be argued that Civitas conforms more to the description of a propaganda outlet, and this is touched on at the conclusion of the study"

Which would rather concur with the nonsensical conclusions in their "report"

Also of note is the use of capitals to sensationalise an inaccurate summation of the contents of the article
...........

[martin]

and a bit of Googling in the "News" area comes up with the fact that only two newspapers have repeated the story - surprise, surprise, the Fail and Torygraph...

[dhaslam]

From the report
The report reveals that, via the EU ETS, each EU citizen is effectively subsidising the power industry by £30 a year

If that was to only  cost  involved in combatting climate change  it would seem like a bit of a bargain. 

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm

[martin]

Good old Grauniad - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jan/09/wind-turbines-increasing-carbon-emissions?intcmp=122

"Are wind turbines increasing carbon emissions?
Wind power is 'crippling expensive' and preventing the UK from effectively reducing carbon emissions, says a new report.
Leo Hickman, with your help, investigates. Get in touch below the line, email your views to leo.hickman@guardian.co.uk or tweet @leohickman

11.32am: A new report published on Monday by Civitas, a social policy thinktank that promotes a "free and democratic society", is claiming that wind power is "inordinately expensive and ineffective at cutting CO2 emissions". In a particularly eye-catching claim, it argues that "wind power, backed by conventional gas-fired generation, can emit more CO2 than the most efficient gas turbines running alone". If true, that would make a mockery of the government's current policy of promoting and subsidising wind turbines.

The report cites as evidence the findings of Dr Kees le Pair, a retired Dutch physcist and long-time critic of the wind industry:

In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on "normal windy days" in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines.

Le Pair's paper was published last October on his personal website. As far as I can tell, it is not peer-reviewed and has not yet been published in an independent scientific journal. But all his calculations and assumptions are there for all to see. For example, we can see that, rightly, he attempts to include the full life-cycle carbon emissions of building and installing both the turbines and their transmission cables. He also accounts for the increased fuel consumption caused by the partial replacement of more efficient generators with lower efficient open cycle gas turbines (OCGTs) needed to better manage the wind's intermittency. In his conclusion, he states:

A 300 MW nameplate wind project near Schiphol on August 28, 2011, a normal windy day, during 21.5 h would have increased the amount of natural gas needed for the electricity production of 500 MW with 47150 m3 gas. This would have caused an extra emission of 117,9 ton CO2 into the atmosphere.

It should be noted that both Ruth Lea, the author of Civitas's report, and Le Pair can hardly claim to be impartial on this issue. Lea, an economist with links to a number of right-leaning thinktanks, has long been a prominent critic of climate policies (particularly the promotion of renewables) and this 2006 column in the Telegraph provides an insight into her views about climate science - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2937837/Personal-view-The-idea-everyone-agrees-on-climate-change-is-a-fallacy.html

But equally partial voices from the other side of the debate have already hit back. The Telegraph today is quoting the reaction of Gordon Edge, director of policy at RenewableUK, the "voice of wind and marine energy". He said Lea's report relied on the findings of "anti-wind farm cranks":

He explained that modern gas plants are not required to provide back-up for wind. Instead, wind is "integrated" into the existing system to act as a fuel saver, enabling the UK to harness a free electricity source from the weather when it's available. Some additional investment is required, but Dr Edge said "credible analysis" makes clear it will cost less for consumers than relying on fossil fuels, that are rising in price all the time.

(I asked Gordon Edge this morning to provide a citation for his reference to this "credible analysis" and he provided a (pdf) link to a Pöyry report published last year.)

But what are your own thoughts and conclusions? If quoting figures to support your points, please provide a link to the source. And I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate, too.

[dhaslam]

This is  the fuel usage in Ireland, full island for November 2011.    It shows that the  gas usage is substantially reduced by wind generation.  Even if there is some  loss of efficiency at times the actual fossil fuel usage  is much less.     

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island_Wind_&_Fuel_Mix_Report_November_2011.pdf

[martin]

further from the Guardian -

12.05pm: Nick Molho, WWF's head of energy policy, has sent me this reaction:

The Civitas report overestimates the cost of dealing with intermittency of wind energy:

* Performance of wind farms has massively improved and costs gone down: Latest report from Bloomberg shows that "the best windfarms in the world already produce power as economically as coal, gas and nuclear generators; the average wind farm will be fully competitive by 2016". In fact, when one takes the price of carbon into account, the average wind farm is already as economic as gas power. http://bnef.com/PressReleases/view/172

* Lots of options to deal with intermittency: As made clear in the CCC's Renewable Energy Review, the cost of intermittency can be managed cost-effectively as there are a range of options to deal with this issue including greater interconnection to Europe, demand side response, short term storage and efficient gas back-up.

* Costs are manageable: CCC Renewable Energy Report concluded that even for shares of 65% renewable electricity by 2030 and 80% by 2050, the cost of managing intermittency would be equivalent to 1p/KWh of additional renewable generation. http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/renewable-energy-review

* Interconnection is key: Report seems to massively underestimate benefits of additional interconnection. The European Climate Foundation Roadmap 2050 report found that greater interconnection with Europe could reduce the amount of gas back-up required by some 35% to 40% in a high renewables system. The analysis by Garrad Hassan in WWF-UK's Positive Energy report (http://www.wwf.org.uk/positiveenergy) also showed that greater interconnection between the UK and Europe could reduce the amount of gas back-up plants required in the UK by up to 50% and ensure that the remaining gas plants on the system are operated far more economically. http://www.roadmap2050.eu/attachments/files/Volume1_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

* Demand side response can reduce costs as well: The ECF Power Perspectives 2030 report found that around 10% of electricity demand in the EU would be shiftable within a day by 2030 and that this could also help reduce the cost of managing the intermittency of wind power by reducing the amount of investment in grids by 10% and in gas back-up generation capacity by 35% by 2030. http://www.roadmap2050.eu/attachments/files/PowerPerspectives2030_FullReport.pdf

In addition, more of a focus on energy efficiency can reduce costs; the CCC says in RE Review that energy demand in homes could reduce by 14% by 2020 which could more than offset costs of meeting the 2020 renewable energy target which would add an estimated 4% to overall energy bills.

[martin]

and even more -

12.16pm: And here's an addendum from RenewableUK:


The Telegraph's reporting of Gordon's comments was slightly incorrect - Gordon's saying that OCGT are not required to balance wind. This is based on National Grid's work on operating the grid in 2020: http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/A14ADB7F-AD60-4979-A7BE-3B736FED4A42/39758/2020FollowUp.pdf

National Grid expect to use higher-efficiency combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGT) to balance wind, and are, in fact, doing that right now - there's a lot less OCGT on the grid than wind. Le Pair requires OCGT in his model because he's balancing a single windfarm, rather than a fleet across an entire nation. A single windfarm has 'spikier' output than an entire fleet, and so requires faster-reacting plant. In any case, the figure he uses for efficiency loss when plant is in balancing mode is somewhat suspect, as he admits to guessing it.

12.54pm: I have received this reaction from Dr Robert Gross, via the UK Energy Research Centre:

I am Director of the Centre for Energy Policy and Technology at Imperial College and Senior Lecturer in Energy and Environmental Policy at Imperial. I run the Technology and Policy Assessment theme of UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC). I have a long standing interest in the costs of energy technologies and in the issue of 'intermittency'.

The technical implications of integrating wind into modern electricity systems are well understood and have been reviewed across many countries, mixes of power plant, climatic conditions and levels of wind penetration. In this subject, as in most others, there is a large body of broadly consistent analyses, undertaken by technically competent bodies such as university research groups, specialist consultancies and network operators. There is also a smattering of 'outliers', often produced by individuals or groups with particular agendas, such as anti-wind lobby groups. Extreme estimates usually result from flawed or overly simplistic methodologies, unrealistic assumptions, or misallocation of costs.

UKERC undertook a thoroughgoing review of the evidence base available in 2006 on the costs and impacts of intermittency, and is in the process of compiling a new review of the relative costs of different generation options, for publication later this year. Electrical engineering based modelling and simulation, and increasingly empirical data from countries where the penetration of wind farms has reached a significant level (such as Ireland, Denmark, Spain, Germany and some US states), demonstrates conclusively that wind does reduce emissions. Economic studies also indicate that the costs of intermittency, though potentially significant (particularly when wind reaches very large penetrations), are currently very small in the UK context. UKERC's assessment concludes that intermittency typically represents less than 10% of the costs of power generation when wind is below 20% of electricity - less than £9/MWh rather than the £60/MWh cited by Civitas. The potential efficiency losses that result from increased 'cycling' of fossil fuel stations responding to wind intermittency are real, but represent a very small fraction of the savings in emissions and fuel that results from the electrical output of wind. UKERC's review indicates that losses typically amount to just 1% of the percentage savings. The options for dealing with intermittency are also diverse; including increasing interconnection, demand side response, and storage, as well as fossil fuel back up.

There is also a substantial consensus that the lifecycle carbon emissions associated with the construction and maintaining of wind power are very small compared to those of fossil fuel sources.

I find it disappointing that Civitas has chosen to disregard the large body of analysis that indicates that the costs and impacts of intermittency are modest and that wind is an effective fuel saver. There is of course a legitimate debate about the cost and feasibility of the 2020 target for renewables, about which renewables deserve how much support, how best to deliver such support and the role of nuclear, carbon capture and other supply options. This debate is not well served by reporting which ignores the findings of a large body of credible, peer reviewed and professional analyses and selects extreme estimates which have not been peer reviewed, do not emerge from credible engineering/economic simulations or models and are widely out of step with the scientific consensus.

[rondurrans]

"The renewable energy industry has today launched a scathing attack on a new study that argues the government should abandon its wind energy targets because the technology is ”inordinately expensive” and is hampering efforts to cut carbon emissions...................."

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2135974/renewableuk-slams-civitas-wind-power-report-inaccurate-outdated

[martin]

and more from the Grauniad -


3.16pm: Some interesting observations below the line by @Portopollo, highlighting some of Le Pair's assumptions:

As an electricity system modeller (someone's got to do it), I just took a quick look at the le Pair report. His central concern - the costs that wind imposes on the system, and particularly the marginal plant is important and does deserve more analysis, but his modelling is simplistic in ways that make it fatally flawed. To pick some major elements:

1. His mini-system (500MW CCGT, 15MW OCGT, XMW wind) is not reflective of the real electricity system in two important ways. First, because he assumes that the marginal CCGT is a very big plant (as he admits, bigger than any existing), any efficiency reductions from cycling are applied across the full capacity of a large plant. Break this into two 250MW plants, one of which operates mainly or always at full capacity, and the overall losses should be a lot smaller (there is the complication that performance of the other would be worse, but back-of-the-envelope from his numbers this works). Second, such a system is simply crude. As others have pointed out in the article, there are many ways of managing variations in generation beyond turning up the gas and these depend on many factors.

2. He assumes that all of the variability is caused by wind and that in his base case - with no wind capacity - gas plant is able to operate in its most efficient state. This is hokum. Most obviously, demand varies by the minute (think of the famous half-time rush to the kettles during the FA cup final). This demand variation is already causing the kinds of effects he is attributing to wind, so his base line is wrong. Wind will still have an impact on variability, but the net effect will be less.

3. His theoretical wind farm is a beast. Up to 300MW in a single location with correspondingly large and rapid variations in output. This is not what European onshore farms look like (offshore farms do get this big, but the wind is more consistent). My guess is a median size of 30MW or so. Spreading this 300MW across ten locations would reduce the variability considerably.

4.03pm: Thanks to @LeedsSolar below the line for highlighting this graph (pdf) produced by EirGrid, Ireland's state-owned transmission company, which shows the fuel mix percentages for electricity generation for the month of November, 2011. The graph at the bottom helps to show how the gas and coal percentages change when the wind percentage increases. On the surface, it seems to show wind negatively impacting on the coal percentage more than the gas percentage. I have asked National Grid if it can supply a similar chart for the UK's fuel mix"

[GavinA]

This is  the fuel usage in Ireland, full island for November 2011.    It shows that the  gas usage is substantially reduced by wind generation.  Even if there is some  loss of efficiency at times the actual fossil fuel usage  is much less.     

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island_Wind_&_Fuel_Mix_Report_November_2011.pdf

it appears I got credited with this link, but was merely passing on the link from dhaslam... credit where it's due.

[A.L.]

I have asked National Grid if it can supply a similar chart for the UK's fuel mix"

Martin I think the data to construct the graph can be found here - www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

After the page has loaded, it can take a while, go 3/4 way down page to "Generation By Fuel Type (graph)", click on "Current/Historic" and then click on "Historic data CSV", the day is divided into 48 0.5hr periods

The column headings are missing but I think they are the same order as presented when you click "Current/Historic"

[wookey]

Interesting stuff. We covered this area before ( http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14172.0.html ) after the very long bravenewclimate thread saying much the same thing as this le Pair fellow.  At that time (started 6 months or so ago) the then-available irish data was used as the basis of another report which claimed little or no CO2 emissions reduction, Interesting to see it now being used by the other side (although that graph just shows fuel variation, not emissions so we can't tell how they changed).

Here are 5 studies giving different CO2 reductions as wind penetration increases:
Udo, Ireland: http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html
Wheatley, Ireland: http://joewheatley.net/emissions-savings-from-wind-power/
Inhaber, various, including ireland: (not free - I have a copy) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032111000864
AWEA, colorado: http://archive.awea.org/newsroom/pdf/04_05_2010_Colorado_emissions_response.pdf
Hawkins,(netherlands, texas, colorado)http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/subsidizing-co2-emissions/

These 5 studies give the following results in percentage of 'expected' CO2 reduction for 20% wind penetration into the grid:

AWEA = 100%
Wheatley (for EirGrid data) = 77%
Udo= 9%
Inhaber = 4%
Hawkins = 0%

So, total lack of agreement there, it's no wonder people are confused when they get data with a spread like this. But 4 out of those 5 had an axe to grind. I'd be interested to know what the range of numbers is from the 50 odd reports linked below is. As the sensible portopollo says above there is actually a lot of agreement and a few outliers, and I expect the answer to be somewhere around wheatley's.

The most convincing report by a long way (based on actual data, not modelling) I've read so far is this one from south Australia: http://www.aemo.com.au/planning/SASDO2011/sasdo.html
They got just about 100% reduction at 23% penetration - more than they were expecting.
 
And if that's not enough for you here is a library of lots of various studies on this subject from Canada, US, Europe:
http://www.uwig.org/opimpactsdocs.html (there are 64 of them now!).

I'm pleased to see that the science of this is developing fast and I believe the crazies are slowly being pushed back as more and more boring power companies reach the same conclusion: Wind is cost-effective, and manageable on the grid, and significantly reduces emissions.

[GavinA]

cross posting from GBF, but... has anyone got any mind bleach?

I just read the Ruth Lea 'report', followed by the dutch report she uses.

I'm coming from a starting point that Ruth Lea is utterly clueless on energy matters, but I think it's safe to say that if the author of the dutch report knows the subject area, then they must have deliberately set it up to achieve the results they did, and that they have no business even hinting that these results have any relation to the real world situation.

He's essentially set up a closed grid situation as his base line, with a steady level of demand, so there's no background level of reserve needed, no background fluctuations to be met etc so he's comparing a situation with one single CCGT operating at perfect efficiency supplying that entire steady demand, with one with one with a single large wind farm added into the mix using a single suspiciously variable days data to supply the variability for this single wind farm with a capacity of between 20-60% of the demand / CCGT generation (100,200 & 300MW wind farm looked at vs 500MW of demand / supply).

He's then used a model that is heavily based on the applitude of the rise and fall in output of the gas turbines causing them to operate at significantly reduced efficiencies (ie efficiency is related to the amplitude), with the gas turbine output varying in direct relation to huge half hourly fluctuations in wind output he's extrapolating from one single anometer on one day on one test site.

Added to that he's then assumed 10% of generation would need to be replaced with the much lower efficiency open cycle gas turbines to accommodate the highest level of wind, and it's really not surprising that he's managed to come up with a conclusion that in this unique situation the wind power would actually add to the overall carbon intensity.

Fact is though that this situation bears no relation at all to the UK grid, or any grid set up I can think of. All grids already have significant levels of variable demand that they have to have significant levels of spinning / fast reserve to cope with at most times, wind output will fluctuate far less rapidly than in his model the more it's distributed across the country, we have 3.5GW of pump storage capacity, hydro capacity, interconnectors etc etc that make his model utterly unrepresentative of the real world situation.

or in brief, it's utter rubbish.

if you really must check it out yourself, the original report is here http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html

[StBarnabas]

I'ts utter rubbish.. (GavinA)

Of course it is. What's scary is that a lot of the world seems to be going backwards. People believe in this propoganda it seems in increasing numbers. As Martin says we need somehow to counteract this non-science. The frightening thing is that in the US in particular dogma is becoming more important than truth.