Surprise: Wind Power Reported Effective
It’s easy to laugh at reports whose titles state the obvious, like “Unprotected Teen Sex Linked to Unplanned Pregnancies,” or “Research Suggests Obese Ingest Excess Calories.”
But apparently, some people need to be presented with data that others may find self-evident. Here’s a report from the University of Edinburgh revealing that wind power has cut a significant amount of carbon emissions (36 million tons/ year, the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road).
You heard it here first.
I have seen no convincing evidence that wind and solar systems are able to meet 100% of power requirements. Every one of them is backed up by systems which are able to provide power 24 hours per day. In theory, with adequate storage capability, wind and solar systems could meet 100% of power requirements, but so far none have.
Sufficient proof would be citing a prosperous country which has succeeded in meeting 100% of its power requirements with wind and solar systems alone. Or, alternatively, instal wind an solar sensors at locations where it would be possible to instal actual working systems, then analyze the data from the sensors to determine whether, with no interruptions, they would be able to provide 100% of power requirements. The analysis could include practical amounts of storage.
Citing amounts of CO2 reduction with currently installed systems proves nothing. We need to cut CO2 emissions by almost 100%, not by some number quoted without adequate context to evaluate it.
@ Craig
While we have entered a ERA where Facts and Truth are secondary to Ideological Positions and Self Limiting Bondage to technically & economically incorrect positions –
As your Post said there is plenty of facts to support wind.
Here are few more.
The Market Truth about WIND is that it is here and more than competitive and is playing a growing role in providing reliable and clean and cost effective energy to the Global Market.
Many doomsayers who have bias toward other forms of energy just have a hard time digesting and accepting that Wind has made the following Huge Strides in the past 25 years.
1. LCOE costs have fallen from $ .68 per Kwhr in late 1980’s to
$ .0250 now in the US. Next to depreciated large Hydro it is the lowest cost power now. A Fact
2. Capacity factors have increased from 17 % to 25 % range and now are exceeding 45% in some locations driving production UP and LCOE Down! Anything over 40 % makes it relevant for integration with Grid and other energy forms.
3. Sizing has grown from 250 to 500 kw to 6 megawatts per Pole.
Further lowering costs and increasing output.
4. Future designs scheduled for 2025 or shortly there after are for 20 megawatts per Pole which will be outstanding.
This is not cost curve bending on the margin but rather Steep Deep cost reductions and economies/designs of Scale.
5. R & D by Siemens is being done now In Europe for Wind energy thermal storage systems ( not with batteries) so that more Wind captured during night off peak hours can be dispatched with a turbine during Peak Load times. This will lead to dispatch able power capability HUGE !!
5a. Turbine and EMC controls and better wind modeling of sites prior to development have all made enormous strides . Bird deaths also going down , the false claims of exaggerated bird kill rates are all part of a effort to discredit wind. A losing Straw-man position!
6. In the US employment and good Domestic manufacturing jobs are around 100,000 or more now and growing . It spreads money around in both Blue And Red states. Red folks making Money now so that’s a game changer ! LOL LOL !!
In US it is a domestic based employment sector so no need for China man and other pretenders stealing our production employment like has been done in so many other sectors much to the demise of the American Economy and Social fabric.
So WIND has a Patriotic Benefit to it perhaps the angry ones will realize that ?
So it now has a balanced political support base so it will take more than foolish ness , corrupted Politicos and their dance with cash Lobbyists or Love of Carbon or Over Enchantment with the promises of Nuclear Genie to stop Wind s continued Growth.
Low LCOE from wind has disrupted economics of electricity market in several states. The market impact has driven 30 to 40 yr old nuclear plants to verge of bankruptcy in the US, The Wind output combined
with Newer high performance gas plants is lowering wholesale energy prices.
The net effect is that in Illinois,Iowa, NY 6 nuke plants still in their so called operating life of 35 to 40 years with 20 more to go now have their Owners pleading for State Governments to allow pricing subsidies that approximate over $12 billion over the next 10 or 12 years. The price supports are needed to keep the plants open period. Controversial and now Blow back is coming from other parties including fossil fuel providers so alliances get broken up !
There have been 3 or 4 other closures where no subsidies were available to save the high maintenance costs plants.
So the failed promises of this technology that was once sold to the public by the Technocratic Class who claimed nuclear energy would be so cheap we would not Need to meter it.
The Hubris and Industry Legacy of over selling and under delivering that was Born in the 1950’s continues to this day in the reality of a Un Fulfilled Industry deliverable.
@ Frank
Your post has merit but you are overlooking the vast amount of data concerning Wind’s position.
I have included the facts of nuclear as they are facts not bias the record of performance perhaps under performance since the 1950’s .
Yes they clean the air while operating which some feel is their Saving Grace but their embedded carbon penalty is Huge and what the net balance really is would be a good metric for honest open policy debate.
Thus the drive for SMR s so they can hopefully compete with Gas , Solar and Wind and play a Role in the Mix. The Mix is the key concept.
Wind is viable in the MIX.
Frank the energy cost performance of Wind is no trivial matter and should not be discounted. Go to Texas and Iowa and Oregon , Washington , Upper Midwest in all these markets the whole sale market price the Key metric of Metrics is going Down. Major contributions to system load is being provided daily now. The ISO’s ( National Regional grid Operators ) build their models around it now. …on and on ..and on!
As I stated the under performance of the nuclear units now requires subsidy of Billions to keep operating so I respectfully ask you what more evidence could one want or need.
Wind is viable and only going to Grow going forward.
While there may be a market role for so called advanced nuclear in the future; the sector must be able to Deliver and not just on capacity factor . It must reduce its cost and deliver better benefits over its lifetime. Perhaps the industry leaders will get it together , Talk is one thing Delivering is Reality. TBD?.
Japan is now updating its Nuclear clean up costs for its 3 shut down ruined units , The price tag as with all things nuclear keeps rising , its doubled and is around $153 BILLION per latest estimate.
The hidden back end costs for nuclear cast a Long Shadow over its Viability and whether or not its a truly cost effective solution
In Sharp contrast Wind like Solar has come a long long way and is making solid emission reductions and growing contributions to the marketplace.
Policy makers would have to be foolish, corrupted and ignorant to submarine this growing sector and reduce its growth in favor of vested carbon interests.
Wind has good base of money making players throughout the entire supply chain now and Mega players are making money so they should be able to ward off foolish efforts to derail it.
But as I began with we do now live in a ERA where Fiction and Ignorance can Trump FACTs and Truth among-st the confused conflicted and misled social masses.
Maybe their intelligence is now Blowing in the Wind !!! ps perhaps that is what happened! LOL LOL
@Craig thanks for this post.
You said; quote:
“University of Edinburgh revealing that wind power has cut a significant amount of carbon emissions (36 million tons/ year, the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road). You heard it here first.”
36 Million Tonnes!
Sounds impressive – and of course it is, so let’s add some context and open up the debate a bit as a result.
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), in its most recent up to date report ‘Total Global Carbon Emissions Data Summary for 2015’ (published in National Emissions V 1.0 (xlsx) November 2016) states that global carbon and CO2 emissions amounted to as follows:
Unit: MtC (1 MtC = 1 Million Tonnes of Carbon = 3.664 Million Tonnes of CO2)
1. Global ‘Carbon’ Emissions Total for 2015 = 9280 MtC
2. UK ‘CO2’ Emissions Total for 2015 = (108 x 3.664 = 396 MtC)
3. Global ‘CO2’ Emissions Total for 2015 = (9280 x 3.664 = 34,003 MtC)
34 Billion Tonnes Globally, and 396 Million Tonnes in the UK!
Expanding Craig’s commentary uncovers that the CO2 emissions reduction contribution of the British wind sector, as 0.106 % (or about 1/1000th) of the overall CO2 emissions from all other sources globally, or 9.090 % of the CO2 emissions from all other sources in the UK!
Like Frank Eggers has taught us all – the challenge for the UK is to get from 9.090 to about 85.0 – 90.0 to be regarded as problem solved.
In the interests of adding some mathematical context and clarity to the global and UK emissions statistics (ORNL), and projecting the debate forward, I have plagiarised and remodelled Craig’s posting:
“University of Edinburgh has reported that wind power has cut a significant amount from annual carbon emissions (36 million tons/ year, the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road).
Although this cut in UK CO2 emissions amounts to a small percentage of 0.106 % (or about 1/1000th) of the overall global CO2 emissions, and approximately 9.090 % of the UK CO2 emissions, every reduction no matter how small, is important.
The underlying and immediate global challenge however is to reverse greenhouse gas emissions permanently to insignificant levels through technological means, to mitigate the rapidly worsening effects on the planet due to climate change.
This requires a coordinated global imperative for the “fast track” development of new energy generation technology to permanently displace traditional fossil fuel power generation entirely, as well as halt production of internal combustion engines by 1/1/2030.
The current over emphasis on renewable energy technology sources such as wind and solar PV technologies are misguided and inaccurate in science, because they are not greenhouse gas reversing capable energy generation technologies at the macro level, and particularly for the developing world, but rather as low energy density technologies they may prove most suitable to be deployed widely and effectively in those places whose CO2 emissions are in the 0 – 0.5 MtC range with populations less than 5 million, and in other places that are considered “permanently fringe of grid” locations”.
—————————————–
Who is The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
ORNL is the largest US Department of Energy science and energy laboratory, conducting basic and applied research to deliver transformative solutions to compelling problems in energy and security, and regarded as a global leader in carbon emissions statistical science.
To summarize: Commentators need to be forthright and ensure that what they say has meat on the bone. A good energy science and technology debate is a robust debate, but it must be underpinned by attention to detail and be factual, rather than cherry picking stats that look interesting up front but lose traction under a more rigorous analysis.
We should all be mindful that lack of detail and accuracy in commentary is not useful at best and dangerous mis-information at worst, particularly for ordinary impressionable people trying to enlighten themselves about the critical issue of global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Lawrence Coomber
Hey Lawrence,
You should be careful to check your math before posting and then repeat posting/flooding a comment.
The UK emissions range is ~110 million tonnes C(not CO2). The estimated carbon abatement from wind was published at 36 million tonnes C (not CO2).
There is no reason to multiply those numbers by 3.6667. They are in constant units. The report implies that wind has reduced the UK’s carbon emissions by roughly 1/3rd. Which is notable.
It is not 100%, and most of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked, as it were… but it’s still a laudable accomplishment. Your determination to mock that accomplishment reflects very poorly on you, and does not change the magnitude of what the UK government and power sectors have done.
Glenn,
What is it you are defending ? If you’re saying that the UK power industry has saved small percentage of carbon emissions from being released into the atmosphere, then you’re correct.
If you’re saying the preventing carbon emissions is laudable, again you’re correct.
However, if your saying that this proves the efficacy of Wind Power in preference to other technologies, that’s debatable.
If Wind power was a purely commercial product, with no public input or impact, I’m sure Lawrence would not be objecting. But in truth the industry only survives due to massive taxpayer/consumer subsidies.
The towers have a visual impact across the landscape with consequences to wild life and public health concerns.
The impact on grid and distribution infrastructure, as well as storm outages, along with a host of other concerns are all matters for proper public concern, debate and scrutiny.
I don’t think Lawrence is saying that Wind turbines have zero value, merely that articles and studies like these are little more than puff pieces to support an industry given to overblown (unintentional) boast, and too little real scrutiny.
Marcopolo,
I object to what I always object to: False drivel inserted into discussions of policy.
I used to call Craig on it all the time, and still do when I happen to check in here and he’s wondered off course… but now I find he has some rather determined detractors who are far more willing to wander into complete BS to support their partisan screeds.
The fact that roughly 30% of the UK carbon emissions have been abated by wind is an extremely significant and extremely laudable accomplishment.
Wind turbines dot landscapes, just as buildings do. It’s progress. Unless you’re some idiot luddite promoting that we live in caves without electricity you have no right to whine about evidence of modern human society appearing on landscapes.
There is no significant threat to birds, the most common-struck flying animals are bats, and they multiply like rodents because they are rodents.
There is no public health issue at all, other than the fact that they improve public health by abating a host of horrible toxins that are part of the package when considering fossil fuels.
It’s a laudable thing. Is it, entirely on its own, enough? No. That wasn’t the point.
Is it a significant accomplishment and a very good first step? Yes.
Glenn,
Like most Wind power enthusiasts, you look at the technology through rose tinted glasses.
The UK wind power industry relies on taxpayer and consumer subsidies to exist (The industry itself is demanding greater protection and subsidization).
“Is it a significant accomplishment and a very good first step? Yes.”
Only if you consider minor carbon reduction at any price, and the sole criteria for any technology.
As Frank points out, what you claim is a “first step”, is both the first and more or less final step !
Wind power except in limited locations is unable to efficiently fulfill the needs of a “power on demand” industrial economy due to it’s inherent flaw of being an intermittent power generator !
Wind Power has other problems, short turbine life, transmission, grid incompatibility, storm vulnerability, unsightliness, fauna losses, etc
A passionate supporters club for any technology is pretty pointless, since it’s the nature of all technology to be superseded and eventually become obsolete.
Lawrence, Frank, myself and others are simply observing that these enthusiastic reports are a little like reading about improvements in steam locomotive technology, interesting, even valiant, but ultimately pointless.
All technology (without artificial political influence) will be judged by convenience, economics and competition.
The problem for Wind and even Solar technology, is because of inherent limitations the usefulness is restricted. Both technologies are vulnerable to competition from superior, more compatible technologies better able to meet the needs of “power on demand” economies.
All we are saying is let’s learn from the debacle of US corn ethanol, and not create a huge industry, at public expense, only to spend more money on replacement technology.
The old saying act in haste, repent at leisure is very applicable.
@Frank
I think you are being overly generous Frank by suggesting – ‘in theory, with adequate storage capability, wind and solar systems could meet 100% of power requirements, but so far none have’. I don’t believe your heart is really in that comment.
Of course what you say is true, but nearly everything is true in theory.
That throw away line is all to common these days and particularly in the renewable energy industry. I overly use it myself in fact, but that’s something I need to work on.
The point where theory and practice part company comes about because both the technology performance and the cost of technology fail the commercial viability analysis.
It is all about the nexus of cost and performance. And it always has been. There will always be a role though for non commercially viable everything. But that scenario can never garner mainstream acceptance. It remains a special case only scenario.
Professional pride alone insists that modern day scientists and engineers must strive to reach and explore the boundaries of their respective fields, and not become content puddling around the soft centre.
Lawrence Coomber
Thanks for your post Craig.
You said; quote:
“University of Edinburgh revealing that wind power has cut a significant amount of carbon emissions (36 million tons/ year, the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road). You heard it here first.”
36 Million Tonnes! Sounds impressive – and of course it is, so let’s add some context and open up the debate a bit as a result.
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), in its most recent up to date report ‘Total Global Carbon Emissions Data Summary for 2015’ (published in National Emissions V 1.0 (xlsx) November 2016) states that global carbon and CO2 emissions amounted to as follows:
Unit: MtC (1 MtC = 1 Million Tonnes of Carbon = 3.664 Million Tonnes of CO2)
1. Global ‘Carbon’ Emissions Total for 2015 = 9280 MtC
2. UK ‘CO2’ Emissions Total for 2015 = (108 x 3.664 = 396 MtC)
3. Global ‘CO2’ Emissions Total for 2015 = (9280 x 3.664 = 34,003 MtC)
34 Billion Tonnes Globally, and 396 Million Tonnes in the UK!
Expanding Craig’s commentary uncovers that the CO2 emissions reduction contribution of the British wind sector, as 0.106 % (or about 1/1000th) of the overall CO2 emissions from all other sources globally, or 9.090 % of the CO2 emissions from all other sources in the UK!
In an attempt to add some mathematical context and clarity to the global and UK emissions statistics (ORNL), and project the debate forward, I have plagiarised and remodelled Craig’s posting:
“University of Edinburgh has reported that wind power has cut a significant amount from annual carbon emissions (36 million tons/ year, the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road).
Although this cut in UK CO2 emissions amounts to a small percentage of 0.106 % (or about 1/1000th) of the overall global CO2 emissions, and approximately 9.090 % of the UK CO2 emissions, every reduction no matter how small, is important.
The underlying and immediate global challenge however is to reverse greenhouse gas emissions permanently to insignificant levels through technological means, to mitigate the rapidly worsening effects on the planet due to climate change.
This requires a coordinated global imperative for the orderly “fast track” development of new energy generation technology to permanently displace traditional fossil fuel power generation entirely, as well as halt production of internal combustion engines by 1/1/2030.
The current over emphasis on renewable energy technology sources such as wind and solar PV technologies are misguided and inaccurate in science, because they are not greenhouse gas reversing capable energy generation technologies at the macro level, and particularly for the desperately energy starved developing world, but rather as low energy density technologies they may prove most suitable to be deployed widely and effectively in those places whose CO2 emissions are in the 0 – 0.5 MtC range with populations less than 5 million, and in other places that are considered “permanently fringe of grid” locations.
—————————————–
Who is The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
ORNL is the largest US Department of Energy science and energy laboratory, conducting basic and applied research to deliver transformative solutions to compelling problems in energy and security, and regarded as a global leader in carbon emissions statistical science.
To summarize: Commentators need to be forthright and ensure that what they say has meat on the bone.
A good energy science and technology debate is a robust debate, but it must be underpinned by attention to detail and be factual, rather than cherry picking stats that look interesting up front but lose traction under a more rigorous analysis.
We should all be mindful that lack of detail and accuracy in commentary is not useful at best and dangerous mis-information at worst, particularly for ordinary impressionable people trying to enlighten themselves about the critical issue of global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Lawrence Coomber
Craig,
It’s to be expected from an industry with huge corporations involved and many enthusiastic supporters, that a continuous stream of enthusiastic and optimistic success stories will be published.
That doesn’t mean Wind power generation is a hoax. The turbines do generate electricity. Wind power generation definitely has some very useful applications.
The problems begin when the Wind Power industry, and Wind Power advocates, lobby governments to promote, mandate or enforce complex regulations to favour Wind power and conceal deficiencies in the technology.
Wind Power has limitations. It’s all to easy to be blinded by small successes and lose sight of the objective. It’s my belief that Wind generation, like bio-fuel, will soon reach the inherent restrictions of it’s usefulness and be largely surpassed by more compatible generating technologies.
That doesn’t mean the Industry will become obsolete. Like solar and bio-fuel, applications will remain where the technology will remain the most suitable, or at least an important contributor.
As Frank and Lawrence point out, it’s folly to form a cheer squad around any individual technology while denigrating the potential more useful technologies.
It’s just a matter of remaining objective and keeping a sense of perspective.
@Silent Running
I will go along with you SR that there will always be a collective of generation technologies or energy MIX around as we move forward globally into ENDURING BIG POWER generation solutions that both reverses and eliminates greenhouse gases entirely and permanently AND provides BIG POWER to the developing world (to and beyond) the developed world’s requirements.
Therefore the current energy chaos around us presents an opportunity of magnificent proportions due to this once in a lifetime conspiracy of events, which should be seized by the brave and bold and skilled nations and corporations, and exploited, to its fullest extent.
Back to the future of the energy MIX. Yes it’s locked in stone forever I imagine, there will always be a MIX, there needs to be, but it will be comprised of MAJOR and MINOR generation technologies, and over time these MINOR technologies (e.g. solar, wind, hydro etc) will wax and wane and be replaced by new MINOR generation technologies that come along periodically. That’s the history of human endeavour.
The MAJOR generation technologies though will be those that deliver ENDURING BIG POWER. These generation technologies will be highly reliable, easily scalable, small footprint, service wide area networks seamlessly, be deployed just about everywhere, and meet everybody’s rapidly growing demand expectations fully+.
Of course, they will have to meet demanding modern society expectations though such as: safe, clean and low cost. So all of this gives us some clues about the development timeline for ENDURING BIG POWER, and I estimate that we will see this happen within 20 years.
20 short years.
So let’s not send the world broke by filling it up with expensive obsolescent MICRO POWER renewable energy generation technologies. Start to slow down the runaway train and be seen to get behind the development of ENDURING BIG POWER generation technology. Let’s redirect our focus to the future global energy imperative of ENDURING BIG POWER energy generation technologies and the elimination of greenhouse gasses as a consequence, before 2050.
No if’s – no butts – no excuses. The world has done deplorably in a global citizens and power context this last 100 years, so let’s not pussy foot around and replicate this global abomination for another 100 years.
Lawrence Coomber
@ Lawrence
Nice to see you Hovering around these exchanges trust you are well.
I want to extend appreciation for your last 3 Posts that you made good effort to present several technical footnotes and facts like I like to say.
You respect my Concept of the Energy MIX. Your approach to providing new technology that can create Big Power and be part of the MIX as you say in the future.
The integration of complimentary Power Mix is the future I see going forward. Blending technologies so that the positives and the limitations can be accommodated in a balanced , positive and synergistic manner that features Cleaner Energy as our Goal so that GHG and Climate change is successfully Mitigated.
You gave me much to contemplate so I will go back to Holiday Lighting ( LED only) Project and escape from the Dark Shadows for awhile.
I will be back with some more data specifics from REN 21 on winds future forecast out till 2050.
Wind has a Tremendous Future Globally and is being deployed as such well beyond Theory.
Holiday Good Wishes and also for your India Ventures etc. they are Commissioning the Worlds Largest Solar Plant – THE Mix!
Carry On mate
@Silent Running
Thank you and Xmas best wishes for you and your lot SR.
Don’t ever abandon your “sniff meter” SR. Develop it further. I have spoken about this point before and if you have forgotten its first principles already – then relearn them. It will open up doors of understanding for you for sure; particularly in contentious concepts such as renewable energy technologies and the future.
You mentioned India.
I have done some interesting technology based stuff in India over the years, and I first visited Calcutta as a young naval engineer in 1968, but my most useful contributions there have been those that come through having a very experienced and refined “sniff meter” developed over many years on the ground; around the world working and observing; and being contemptuously inquisitive about extracting the truth from those involved in something particular. Once this happens though, the door is then open to appropriate foundations processes and practices being instituted, and real outcomes that suit the objectives become possible.
At their long standing invitation, two weeks ago I met with a group of small engineering company heads in New Delhi to spend a day with them to present a workshop that I titled “India 2017+ Creating a Sustainable RE Engineering Culture and Business Model”. This workshop was not an ad-hoc event though. I have already done some small scale RE projects in Gujarat since 2012 and also assembled a lot of information from the Indian Government and other authorities over the preceding 12 months. My Indian “sniff meter” goes back over 48 years now and is about as refined as it can get, and I put it to good use (before and during) the workshop.
After the introductory warm up session (which is always confrontational – drilling down beneath the hype and misinformation always is) we all agreed on a common understanding, that to get the best out of the day, we must all search with forensic precision for openness, honesty and objectivity in everything we discuss. Forget bias, forget vested interests, forget zombie ideas, and put to one side; just about everything learned hitherto about the subjects at hand and clung onto like a limpet mine to date.
The outcomes that day were illuminating for the company heads; well understood from a professionally detached perspective; sensible and achievable within the scope of expertise in place; offering commercial advantage over competitors; and something that can now be fleshed out in detail and implemented by a professional plan of attack.
I believe I have a very clear vision about the future outcomes of the RE industry development in India, and I will be introducing these views at the Renewable Energy Center of Excellence and Technology Training Academy in Jinan China in Q2 2017. They are likely to be controversial (for some). LOL
Enjoy your Xmas Plum Pudding!
Lawrence Coomber
@Glenn
Thanks Glenn and you are correct.
It looks like my summary conclusions were out by a factor of 6; or 36/6 to be more precise.
I have revised them here:
—————————————————-
University of Edinburgh Report said, quote:
“The figures from 2008-2014, analysed in the most accurate study of its kind to date, suggest that a greater investment in wind energy could help meet Scottish and UK government targets for carbon emissions reduction.
Engineers from the University analysed National Grid figures for the power generated by various sources including wind, coal and gas.
Their data detailed generator energy output figures for every half hour, creating a comprehensive picture of how demand over time was met by power from the various sources.
Power from wind farms prevented the creation of almost 36 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as coal and gas, in a six-year period.”
—————————————————-
The last paragraph is important as it states that 36 million tonnes of C was prevented IN A SIX YEAR PERIOD of the study, rather than ANNUALLY as I mistakenly read it. So that now equates to an average of 36/6 million tonnes C = 6 million tonnes of C PER YEAR.
So we now have ‘6 million’ tonnes C reduction through wind per year, out of a UK total of ~108 million tonnes C emissions per year. Not ‘36 million’. My mistake.
That changes the results considerably and shows that the CO2 emissions reduction contribution of the British wind sector, as 0.0176% (or about 1/5700th) of the overall CO2 emissions from all other sources globally, or 1.515 % of the CO2 emissions from all other sources in the UK annually!
ORNL 2015
1 CHINA (MAINLAND) 2788.15862101
2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1389.97016537
3 INDIA 620.72321994
4 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 471.43284598
5 JAPAN 323.14403716
6 GERMANY 196.19831973
7 ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN 176.71558769
8 SAUDI ARABIA 163.90063133
9 REPUBLIC OF KOREA 161.61594243
10 INDONESIA 146.61674050
11 BRAZIL 140.51990887
12 MEXICO 128.82249686
13 CANADA 126.42394196
14 SOUTH AFRICA 126.14142745
15 UNITED KINGDOM 108.46702052
16 AUSTRALIA 104.48362171
Once again; like Frank Eggers has taught us all – the challenge for the UK is to get from 1.515 % to about 85.0 % – 90.0 % to be regarded as problem solved through wind power alone.
Lawrence Coomber
Correction:
That changes the results considerably and shows that the CO2 emissions reduction contribution of the British wind sector, as 0.0176% (or about 1/5700th) of the overall CO2 emissions from all other sources globally, or 5.555 % of the CO2 emissions from all other sources in the UK annually!
@ Marco @ Lawrence
There is so much quibble floating around one would have to spend more than enough time sorting thru it all.
But you statements that with out tax breaks the wind industry would die. Maybe that is true in Australia and other places ????? but not in the US. I really think you are so out of touch with reality on this it Begs the Pale !
Electric Utility Executives all say that Wind is a major component of their IRP’s going forward. that means Integrated Resource Plans Marco!
So what you say about Un economical Wind is BS Marco you just have technology blinders on and you only think a certain form of power is viable. That is your consistent position that shines thru all your missives Sir. I know its the Holidays but I just am stating Truth to continued meandering around with incomplete and misleading information from you.
The market statistics from the Globe do not support yo0ur ongoing Premise s period.!
If Wind was not efficient power it would not be number 1 or number 2 GLOBALLY in deployment now. Period end of story.
The Billions spent by private sector co like Siemens , G E and many others on improving the technology, investing in manufacture, the off shore ship and service sector investment and on and on would not be happening.
I suggest you get a good bottle of Wine and maybe one for Lawrence C also an maybe three or four. Read the REN 21 report by the I E A. International Energy Administration they have forecasts out to 2050 and the details and documentation is all there.
I would send you a copy if this 2 Green Energy site allowed attachments. There are several growth cases from low to very high and even in the low case WIND IS A MAJOR SOURCE OF POWER FOR THE GLOBE Kind sirs!
BTW Marco – The REN21 report has one of its major contributors from UNiv of Syndey Australia , maybe different name but it is in Sydney Australia. they helped write the report.
It came out a few months back.
So both you and Lawrence need to get some Wine and do some reading and get up to speed on what the major institutions say in these matters.
Cost , Wind it is now the Cheapest form of electric power and numerous agencies, industry news sites and sources all state that even Power Engineering Journal which is the US Utility backbone source of industry info.They were coal and gas strong but have opened up to more of a MIX in the past 3 years as the Economics for Wind and Solar are Compelling.
The PTC credit is phasing down over next 5 years here in States and the Industry forecasts are strong going forward despite this.
All that will hold it back is NIMBY syndrome off the East Coast. The forecast there is 89 GW or 89,000 Megawatts.
So as Lawrence and I concur and he seemed to accept it will be about a MIX going going forward. there is No One Technology that will dominate at this point in time.
Though Shell Oil says solar does dominate in the end past 2050 . Their date may be wrong too far off at least they acknowledge Reality for a change. There will be different solar formats and types and they will become even more cost effective as fossil fuel goes up in price.
Lawrence thank you for your update on carbon emissions and those due to wind.In UK .
Those types of figures are in the REN 21 Report for Wind in fact they go into much detail etc.
As for India , I concede that you may have on the ground experience in India and I congratulate you for any good efforts you may have made there.
But Trade Journals write about the biggest solar power plants and these people have to sell ADs so if they put out bogus info or claims then no Ads no revenues no publishing ! Wala !
So as of 2 months ago India now can lay claim to building the largest Solar Plant in the World recently or half way thru .
No other inference by me was made Sir. They may be doing lots of things with people like you and what ever those efforts are good.
I dont have that on the ground experience . Not my thing.
I just know they are looking at those Thorium Reactors, More Wind and Solar and starting to reduce the level of Coal like china. they cant quit over nite but they are planning to reduce the expansion of coal to a smaller level than lets say 10 years ago.
They need more investment in Grid and Distribution and Transmission etc. for what ever final MIX they settle on.
So I have a accurate over view of their needs and that is it. All I need to know. We are not writing a Investment Grade newsletter here !
Marco just clings to his one size fits all nuclear Genie systems and all else no count is the way I read Marco. So limited a Perspective but that is his Bloody well Right! as some would Say!
Go read a current Global Study by a large Global Agency that studies these matters in much greater detail that even has contributions from Australia .
Happy Holidays If I get time I will get the link to the study etc.
but a simple google search Renewable Energy 2100 or REN 21 its free and downloadable so good Fireside w Wine Reading!
Cheers Mate I will toast that 2017 brings a wider Perspective and Energy View to my Mate from Down Under !
As some of the practicing Experts state globally there are less than 25 nukes of some sort being built – in contrast to 100’s of GW ‘s of Clean Solar and Wind and then Nat Gas . coal which is in deep trouble still out performs new builds compared to your lil Genie ! Ask santa for a New Version of the Genie time to get with the program .
Hopefully Lawrence’s Wishes come true and Santa does deliver a new Nuclear Genie and then the future gets more interesting again and there will be a MIX that perhaps meets more of the World s needs etc. , till then its just talk.
Maybe the Trumper will deliver ????
Silent,
As I replied to Glenn, Wind and Solar can prove useful in some limited locations. No denies the usefulness of the technologies in those contexts.
The US Wind industry, along with solar would shrink dramatically in the US without the huge incentives, subsidies, and mandates from Federal, State and local authorities.
An example of this can be found in the operation of a Wind farm in Iowa. The 2,000 megawatt wind farm is being built MidAmerican Energy.
But electricity isn’t the only profitable item produced. Over the next 9 years, the project will generate over $2 billion in transferable tax credits.
Investors like Warren Buffett, Facebook, Microsoft, etc, Google will also receive additional tax benefits worth tens of billions billions as “nominated” users of MidAmerican Energy.
Those losing, are taxpayers and real consumers who are footing the bill.
The MidAmerican Energy Iowa wind farm generates more tax credits than electricity!
In total, MidAmerican Energy could generate up to $1.8 billion in tax credits for its backers over the next decade.
It’s not the demand for more electricity that’s driving Wind construction, but government preferential tax treatment and energy mandates.
As Warren Buffett advised his shareholders.
” “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate. We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without these generous tax credits”.
But that’s not all ! (steak knives)
To compensate for MidAmerican Energy not receiving any financial incentives from the State of Iowa, the federal government provides $23 in credits for every megawatt hour (or part thereof). This production tax credit (PTC), means the government guarantees MidAmerican’s new wind farm will generate $180 million in extra transferable credits each year !
But that’s still not all !
The Federal government will guarantee MidAmerican an 11% return on equity ,approximately $400 million each year, over the roughly 30 year life of the project.
In transferable production tax credits, and direct subsidies, the IEA admits Wind power will cost taxpayers $23.8 billion between 2014 and 2018.
This doesn’t include the cost of energy mandates, which drive up electricity prices as traditional energy sources are phased out, or dumped, for costlier power provided by wind generation.
Undoubtedly there may be some exceptions to these examples, and Wind projects which are competitive, however that’s becoming increasingly difficult to analyze due to the complexity of the subsidies, incentives and mandates, some of which are very difficult to uncover information.
Oh, and just as an aside, for both your and Glenn’s information, the National Geographic Society reports the deaths of millions of thousands of birds killed by Turbines globally, most notably 30% of the Golden Eagle population.
Wind turbines may also upset avian migratory patterns resulting in species extinction.
Silent, we are not saying Wind generation has no place, we just ask you to be less passionate and more objective.
@SR
Silent Running your future vision is the equal of the eyepiece of a telescope.
You really want to feel that you are a part of the beginning – middle and conclusion to the subject that interests you most; renewable energy technology. Everything must be exposed and fully dealt ad infinitum in your genre. I’ve got news for you old mate.
You claim to be open-minded and capable of visualizing change over time but really you can’t take the next step and express any enthusiasm looking forward to change, or even freely conjecture what that change possible might look like, and why it might be useful change.
You don’t at all relish change going forward within the global energy sector. Why, well in your mind change is already well and truly in place; change is now locked in and loaded; we can now close the gates it’s all over red rover. Goodnight Irene. OK that’s the global energy technology out of the way forever what’s next on the agenda please?
It wasn’t climate change, but at the turn of the century the biggest environmental challenge faced by the world’s great cities London and New York was horse shit. London in 1900 had about 300,000 horses operating in the city, New York about 100,000. People had to navigate rivers of muck when it rained, and fly infested dung heaps when dry. Manure was the daily top agenda item in both cities in that era yet no remedies could be implemented and there were no answers forthcoming from concerned citizens.
Yet one short decade later the problem had disappeared!
It disappeared through technological change.
Brought on by a man who understood change, understood that change is an immutable force, and understood that the market determines when and why change will be taken up by people.
Henry Ford produced the first Model T which was cheap (commercially viable), fast and clean (what the people wanted). By 1915 horses were off the streets of London and New York.
The much loved horses were instantly dumped like hot cakes. There is little loyalty to nostalgia when positive change is placed before you.
Interestingly of course is that we don’t drive Model T Fords anymore, vehicles have changed.
Lawrence Coomber
@SR
Silent Running how about you join me for a two week study/working tour in late March doing some small scale RE projects (micro hydro – solar and storage) in some interesting places and you can meet some RE engineers and other technocrats on the ground. I am happy to make this a standing offer for anytime you need a break. LOL
Lawrence Coomber
@ Marco and Lawrence you two guys really just cant accept the FACT that Wind and Solar are garnishing serious market share .
Lawrence big change is from 68 cents a kiwhr to .025 per kwhr in less than 20 years!
What dont you get about that ??
Marco your claims about all these subsidies and incentives. Yes there are some States with RPS standards some have none.
The 30 % ITC and the PTC are the main ones. The PTC in place now also ends after 10 years.
The 30 % ITC is more solar plant oriented. It begins phase out over the next 5 years and will be gone 2022 or so.
Oil and Gas has been subsidized for over 100 years and still is. and if Externalities were included the subsidy and societal cost to all of us is huge!!!
You Marco are the one with limited Vision and all your detrimental claims against Mid american Energy is over done. He is now making money on that project the economics of wind power is much better than when he first got into it. Yes there some of these credits for big players is attractive.
At least the credit is for something that is Clean creates jobs and does not pollute and does not use large volumes of water. It reduces carbon emissions too.
One can examine most of the corporate tax breaks and the rich tax loopholes and they are used to buy Yachts and finance more wasteful golf courses and gas guzzling Hummers etc etc , They are used to monopolize housing and create stress for shelter among-st the working class. Yeah Marco
thjats what all this welfare for the upper class leads too and the Trumper is getting ready to give the money accelerators and over paid white collar thief’s on Wall St more money in the form of tax breaks. How Productive is that – explain that bs to the World I am sure you would get real Blow back as the amount of corporate welfare and welfare for the upper income who are making money on money now and not producing anything of Real Value to society in many cases.
So there are good tax credits and their bad ones.
Here is some long time facts on your nuclear genie
In contrast the Price Anderson Act which underwrites the risk for the under performing Nuclear Genie Plants lasts 35 to 65 or more years . Society and rate payers have paid this since 1970’s in the US. It is the only way the Banks would loan money on the plants.
The entire nuclear fuel cycle is subsidized with our tax dollars and the government operates fuel processing and uranium rod fabrication under the DOE. I used to deal with the mines as they shipped off yellowcake to the Federal processing plants in Ohio, Ill, and Kentucky.
So the FEDs have kept the cost down for the GENIE !
Irony is that the trumpet has selected Rick Perry to lead the DOE Energy Dept. This is the guy who wanted to close down DOE. But loves being King Kong nuclear bomb strong etc etc.
So explain to me just how would they get the nuclear fuel and Bombs if no DOE!
Marco your point on the certain type of Eagle Kills well that is the more true. But the radars and siting restrictions are reducing Avarian deaths since 10 years ago. Wind is not the empty power you claim.
Go Read REN 21 lots of carbon reductions, lots of gigawatts and more coming and lots of product improvement and cost reductions in the pipeline.
then you will have something to argue about as the deployment levels discount almost All that you have claimed.
I never have said that wind or solar is the end all and be all I even entertain some more lil nuclear Genies if they ever can start performing.
thank you Glenn Doty for pushing back to Marco’s attacks and scratched record attacks on Wind which are over generalizations. UK and Europe are doing GREAT Things W Wind.
Lawrence your sarcasm brings a smile thanks. You stay busy over there in India or China Man land teach them how to do things right.
There will be more solar in India and maybe more Wind and less coal. So I am happy over that.
Lawrence your Model T analogy is way off base go back to the drawing Boards.
You and Marco just dont like the fact that the ships have left the Docks and the trains are running with out your favorite power source. So go out there and make it happen.
Then you can Join in the POWER Mix! No one is Stopping the Genie. It w happen when the technology and the market need is ready. that I can see. But I am not looking very far as the wind and the soalr are exciting enough and when gas goes up we get CPs solar 18 to 20 hr plants and Wind with storage w turbines for peak power and that may limit market opportunities for other power sources , so get with it.
Stop criticizing progress and work on your progress and then we can meet in the middle ok.
One Trick Pony’s is a Label that no fits on me. Lawrence
Thanks for the invite to India I guess but not at this time. I am restricted in travel at this time. Sounds like you are involved with some good projects good on You.
Go do some Reading then come back with your points ok. How hard is that .??? Broaden your Horizons .
Have nice Holidays !
Silent,
“There are none so blind as those who will not see !”
Germany, Spain, the UK, even South Australia are all reassessing continuing with Wind and Solar subsidization and distorted accounting.
The problem isn’t that the technology doesn’t work at all, it clearly works to a certain degree. Wind power certainly reduces some carbon emissions.
The problem with Wind power is inherent in it’s incompatibility with the power needs of industrial societies.
The idea isn’t to find ‘any’ technology, but the best technology that can most easily and cheaply replace all the best aspects of fossil fuel.
There’s no value in comparing Wind and Solar to 60 year old nuclear plants. It’s no good trying to distort the figures, rig the market and heavily subsidize an inappropriate technology,a square peg will never fit in a round hole !
I realize you can devise an adapter, or a series of adapters until it sort of fits in the round hole, but eventually someone will point out that a better technology exists, so why bother ?.
Sooner or later, no matter how you improve a steam locomotive, it will not be able to compete.(no matter how loudly you cheer!)
I understand your impatience and desire to begin reducing carbon emissions, but creating another debacle like US corn ethanol isn’t the answer.
Government subsidies and tax incentives etc are not necessarily bad, but when they maintain an inefficient technology while suppressing a superior technology, they become disastrous.
I don’t dislike Wind or Solar, (I own both),but I can see the shortcomings and incurable defects. I can also estimate the inherent advantages of modern advanced nuclear and perceive that no one will bother with technology that can provide a bit of a solution, when a technology exists that can provide everything .
@ Marco @ Lawrence
You have allowed your experience to frame your opinion that is your right Marco
I disagree with you and lets leave it at that . Your arguments are full of False Equivalencies.
Here is the name of the Australian Scientist from Australia – Dr. Swen Teska Research Principal Engineer Institute for Sustainable Futures University of Technology Sydney Australia. He is one of the Primary Research contributors to Ren 21 published by a consortium led by the International Energy Administration – the Global Assoc. for Energy studies.
I suggest Marco that you go visit with this researcher and present your positions. Perhaps he may be moved to incorporate your positions into a new section of this Global report if he and his associates find any Merit in what you say.
They may create a different and new scenario for your ideas and calculate any necessary reductions in the four different scenario forecasts that they do. They Forecast out to 2020, 2030 and end w 2050 . Their forecasts have been found to be conservative in total deployment as the market has expanded at a much more rapid rate globally. They have been doing this since 1999 and have a more refined process now.
Suggest you take your claims to Them. Then we may know if there is any merit to your claimed positions Mate.
Google Global wind Energy Report 2016 REN 21
The report is only 44 to 46 pages so you can knock it out in a few hours.
To anyone else following this discussion I encourage you to make the time to read this Global report on wind as it clears the air and the confusion on the issue. it also sheds good insights to carbon reduction impacts of different levels of penetration for wind and provides employment, pricing competitiveness and water savings information etc.
The fact is WIND is now the leading new source of Electricity Generation in the World.
By 2025 Prices for Wind energy will fall 35 % more for Off shore Wind ( the big new Frontier UK and Europe) On shore will decrease 26 % , both of these metrics are averages. Could be higher depending on deployment of bigger turbines , higher tower heights that result in higher capacity figures in the mid 40 s or more. Off shore will be higher.
WIND is now also the lowest cost of power, not projected but operationally now.
If Environmental and health related benefits are included this cost advantage only grows.
So we have a Benefit Stack of
1. Low cost power
2. Jobs Renewable energy employs more people per unit of electricity than Oil or Gas.
More than 1 million people no work in this sector.
3. Water Wind uses no water in production and the reductions in water usage by this sector is impressive in many areas. Wind reduces over all water usage 52 % in UK and 37 % in US , 32 % in Australia to name a few.
3. Public health and Air Pollution benefits
4. Climate change The Energy sector accounts for 66 5 of all Air emissions GHG . so RE is the energy form that reduces this the most .
It is the only power source that can be deployed fast enough and at sufficient scale to reduce GHG to meet Paris targets.
Yes the nuclear Genie can do some of this but can it do it fast enough ? Globally only around 25 or so plants are being built. A drop in the bucket!
Wind Power capacity globally is now 433 GW at end of 2015. this was a 17 % increase over last year.
Marco this cant all be because of some PTC s and other credits that you claim are so rampant???
Lawrence India has 25,088 MW now and going to expand . The GWEC led FOWIND consortium is developing a off shore roadmap for India to spur well planned expansion for India.
The report presents 4 different Forecast ed Scenarios for growth.
IEA new Policies
IEA 450 Scenario first used in 2010 sets a target to limit Carbon emissions to the 450 degree limit for carbon etc.
GWEC Global Wind Moderate Scenario
GWEC Advanced Scenario which is the most aggressive approach to reducing carbon etc.
so the REN 21 Wind summary looks at several different outcomes.
This is just 7 % of total global power production. So much much more needs to be deployed ASAP. Same w solar and other Green technologies.
there is room for SMR’s but as I say time to deploy and stop the dancing and talking , deploy – build playing catch up .
Perhaps Marco this information will shed more light on your stated positions and why I discuss this with you advocating for more Re and Efficiency standards to be developed and implemented ASAP.
to everyone Happy Holidays – this is good material and like all studies of this type there are going to be variations. The industry seems to be addressing the choices that Nations and the General Public wants going forward.
I dont expect this report to completely change your positions Marco or Lawrence. But your simplistic talking points detracting wind and its supporters like myself fall far short ,
This info should clear the Air as they say.
Holiday wishes to all
@SR
Silent Running.
An enduring global energy industry, responsible for providing huge amounts of power to all people above and beyond the current global generation figures, and at the same time permanently eliminating greenhouse gases through generation to insignificant levels, can’t be built on the back of cleverly crafted wordsmithing and glossy press releases, no matter how authoritative all the press and commentary may seem to the masses.
It can only come through an energy density technology that is getting close to the pointy end limits of our known energy scientific knowledge. And you know this to be true SR.
The devil is always in the fine detail. Very few people are really interested in fine detail though, most ordinary people are not equipped to connect the dots of fine detail. It often exposes disappointing facts, hence the oft heard expression “well if I had known that up front I wouldn’t have done things that way”. LOL. We have all been there.
Remember Solyndra? Exciting glossy press releases; gathering momentum with the overly enthusiastic the instant believers. The ones who weren’t interested in needling Solyndra for fine detail, or more likely the ones who lacked the capabilities to unearth fine detail. Those poor souls were already putty in Solyndra’ hands after the first glossy press release.
I clashed with their execs when they launched at Intersolar Munich in 2005. It was a bare faced scam, very easy to identify within about 2 minutes of talking with them, and their lack of anything real stood out like dogs nuggets at that exhibition. I wrote about it as soon as I returned to my office. Well we don’t hear too much from Solyndra these days – they are defunct, and took the US taxpayers to the cleaners for the tune of $535,000,000.
Governments are great at trotting out optimistic press releases. And we all know that every one of those utterances comes to magnificent fruition. LOL.
Although I have the same degree of respect for you and Marco Polo, on this issue Marco Polo is all over you like an ill-fitting suit.
Dig deeper SR. Don’t be proved to be an easy-beat over time.
Be more inquisitive in 2017 SR and less enamoured to rubbish reports from vested interests and glossy press releases.
From my experience, you seem hell bent on setting yourself up for a fall when things go pear shape, and policies and trends quickly change through disruptive technologies coming rapidly into focus.
Protect yourself.
You don’t deserve that sort of outcome.
—————————————————-
Solyndra misled government to get $535M solar project loan: report…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/…/solyndra-misled-government-get-535-million-solar-p/
Aug 26, 2015 – Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer who took more than $500 million from President Obama’s stimulus then went bust, sticking taxpayers for the loss, lied to federal officials to secure the loan, the Energy Department’s inspector general said in a report released Wednesday.
Lawrence Coomber