http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/danish_patsies/

Andrew Bolt
Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 09:20am

Michael J. Trebilcock, professor of economics at Toronto University, says Denmark’s wind power is a con:

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions… Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery…

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

He also pulls a sleight of hand by ignoring total emissions and instead focusing on emissions/kWh from thermal plants, which he admits are backed way down.

If we standardized nuclear designs, and removed the legal and regulatory delay risk, shouldn’t nuclear be cost competitive. It seemed to work for the French a generation ago.

The biggest problem is that wind plant is very expensive. The company I work for has extensive hydro operations, and wind for us is not a viable option: too expensive and too unreliable, and too dependant on government support to work economically. Government support at the moment seems sound, but the sentiment is changing, and once it becomes a political negative, government support will get dropped like a hot potato. Then wind generators will be stuck with high cost, high maintenance and low reliability plant. Best of luck to them, but we’ll stick to viable investments.

Wind generation is a fringe technology, and trying to use it for baseload generation is insane. And for longer term planning it is a disaster. Where appropriate back-up capacity is being built, it just insanely expensive, literally more than doubling the cost. But where just additional wind capacity is being built, a generation shortage is looming in the near future. It is worth noting that many wind farms are built on the basis of overall wind, but of course, matching generation to demand, and especially peak demand, is what grids need to deliver. Wind can only do that by accident, and is therefore unreliable.

Hydro power and gas turbine (or reciprocating engines) are a good backup for wind’s variability. Hydro can make money doing “spin” and be available to meet the ups and downs of wind generation. This is not without cost because the water that is run through the turbines has a value if held to the peak value of summer. This ranges from $65-125/MWH. While this is not “cheap”, this can fill in the variability of wind for an effect cost that is similar, or much less, than the cost’s of a natural gas fired unit.

As far as natural gas as a backup, there are reciprocating (giant “diesel engines”) that have a heat rate of 8300 (maybe as low as 7300) which is similar to combined cycle systems. These can do “spin” but more often do “non-spin” which allow them to be online in 20 minutes. The accuracy of the wind forecasts allow this matching to occur. Using $5/mmbtu natural gas, the costs of meeting wind variability is around $45-50/MWH which is expensive relative to coal but is very competitive relative to the market in California.

By the way, I have come to the conclusion that AGW is a crock but we need to do everything possible (except nuclear – too expensive!!) to make the US energy independent!

power generated by wind spinning any sort of blades or apparatus over a given sweep is a function of windspeed raised to the fourth power.

consider what this means:

any given set of blades has an optimum windspeed for peak power output. this is the speed they use for nameplate specification. above that speed, they need to start feathering the blades and dumping power, but that only goes so far at which point they need to shut down the turbine.

but the real issue is what happens it is less windy?

if windspeed is 80% of peak, power output is only 41% of faceplate.

at 50% peak windspeed it’s less than 7%.

absent the ability to store large quantities of power cheaply and efficiently, the physics of wind power make it impossible for it to be a reliable part of the grid.

I have no idea if this is could be a practical energy source. One thing I am sure of: if it is ever proposed to actually build such a plant, the greenies will suddenly realize that water vapor is a greenhouse gas!

I think that the dangers of global warming have been grossly overhyped, but I’d really want to see a good model of the local weather effects before any large scale deployment of such plants. Think of lining the southern California coast with such plants: there’d be more rain, higher humidity over the deserts, and more snowfall in the Sierras. LA would have an easier time finding drinking water. OTOH, more muddy hillsides would slide out from under split level houses. The danger from brush fires would be reduced initially, but the brush would grow faster, so I don’t know about the long run.

And somewhere a dry-climate-adapted plant or animal would be endangered by the wetter weather.

As a Michigander, I’m probably downwind from the second-best place to locate these gigantic humidifiers – if they can figure out a way to keep them from freezing up every time the intake air drops below 40 or 50 degrees F. I certainly don’t need more rain and snow or higher humidity in August. OTOH, compared to coal plant emissions, what am I worried about!

But we have known that for years.

And yet we still argue with them. They will never understand. They cannot. Their brains are specialized for manipulating people, whereas ours are poor at that and specialized for manipulating the physical universe. We are makers, they are takers and fakers.

I have no idea how to solve this except to be ever more stubborn, more intransigent, to refuse to be manipulated, to try to stop the manipulation of others.

But argue with the silly buggers? Waste of time.