Does Wind Actually Decrease CO2 Emissions?

This question was asked of the British Government recently and here is their reply:

 

RE: Empirical measurement of fossil fuel displacement by wind power

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information requests received on 1 May 2011.

Your requests, received 1 May from Dr John R. Etherington

“Has any attempt been made to relate the short term variation of ACTUAL fuel-use by load-following plant to metered wind power feed-in? If so, can the figures be provided, expressed as tonnes of CO2 actually saved per MWh of wind generated electricity?

If no such attempt has been made why not, as carbon-fuel displacement is the only justification for deploying expensive, and covertly subsidised wind power?”

We have considered your request in accordance with the Environmental Regulations 2004 (EIRs) as the information you sought disclosure of, does in our view, fall within the definition of `environmental information’ as stated in the EIRs. We have now completed searching for the information you requested.

In order to determine the relation of the short term variation of actual fuel-use by load-following plant to metered wind power feed-in, we would need to know what fuel use would have occurred in the absence of wind power (i.e. the counterfactual).

This counterfactual (the fuel use in the absence of wind power) depends on the proportions of nuclear, CCGT or coal investment that are being displaced by wind power and the effects on their subsequent operation.  Such a counterfactual can only be calculated by modelling a world without wind power and by subsequently comparing it to the current data on emissions from the grid. No such analysis has been carried out by DECC.

HT: Phillip Bratby

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/8/18/wind-produces-more-co2-than-gas-the-numbers.html

And so we do not actually know the answer to that question.  I think this response by the DECC is important for everywhere to realize the truth.  No one actually knows the answer on whether wind turbines decrease CO2 emissions and likewise decrease other emissions from normal power plants.  In this insane zeal to decrease pollution of all types we have grabbed this delusional thought that we must build the industrial monsters and in the end its nothing but a waste of time and resources.   So why do people think they decrease CO2 emissions?  That belief comes from the belief that we should only count one side of the equation, namely the side that shows the benefit of Wind Turbines and not look at how it increases emissions as well due to its intermittent nature.  The numbers run at the above link indeed show that its likely that adding wind above a certain threshold actually INCREASES CO2 emissions and the best case scenario turns out to be 10% savings assuming everything works perfectly.   So somewhere between -10% savings and 10% savings is the probable result of adding wind to the grid in terms of CO2 emissions.  In other words, it’s just as likely that we save zero in CO2 emissions than we do not.

Until someone actually does the difficult job of figuring out the real result, adding more wind to the grid is a fool’s errand that only accomplishes higher power bills for the poor and tax breaks for the rich.  Other than the regressive tax that wind really brings, which is probably good for the rich who buy into these pork barrel products, there is not one good thing to their name.  I think its time to answer this question once and for all so that we stop enriching our rich land-owners at the cost of the poor for no reason.

Advertisements

Wind Power: all of the aesthetic beauty of a wiener

After every argument in favor of wind power is deconstructed as it is here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100227983/wind-turbines-are-a-human-health-hazard-the-smoking-gun/

and here:

http://timworstall.com/2012/08/18/calling-william-connelly/#comments

The only argument left standing is that we should build these monsters because they are pretty.  You can talk to any green and they will go on and on about how they admire the aesthetic view of them from afar and how they want to gaze upon their naked faces in the glowing embers of sunset.

windts_20120207T144936_550Wind-energy

 

Continue reading

100 years of warming means nothing.

Any scientist that even attempts to come to conclusions on global warming with 100 or even 1000 years of data is a fool.  To insist that the temperature trends of BEST mean anything or that any trends that we see have meaning is assuming so much when what we really lack is real information….the warming over the last 100 years for instance is nothing but a second in a day of the climate, and to claim that you know everything there is to know about the climate based on 100 or even 1000 years is to be the expert fool.   I think the problem here is an educational issue where scientists so fell in love with ideals and computers that they forgot the first step in the scientific process where we actually have to prove what they state.  In this case, we are left with science in shambles, and a bunch of expert fools running around telling us how we must live our lives.

As this chart shows here, the more long-term trends show us the current trends as being less scary.  If you notice the long-term graph above, the rise in temperatures that has occurred recently is not very scary at all and look rather normal when you look at the big picture.  Should we allow people who show us clipped versions or “selected versions of reality” really tell us how to live our lives?  I think this picture here tells us all we need to know in that regard.  Nothing scary is occurring and even if CO2 has an impact, it is more than likely minor and the warming we have seen in the last 100 years is natural and nothing to be concerned about.

Continue reading

Wind Power, figuring out the actual cost

First, a little explanation.  The costs of wind are very difficult and it took me at least 10 hours to come up with a reliable figure.  This is because the subsidies involved are built into cost estimates from official sources from both the Federal Government and Wind Turbine manufacturers.  In addition, you will see a very optimistic view on replacement costs of parts that break and on the O/M – that is operating and maintenance of wind turbines.  One worker can basically be hired for a farm of say 4 wind turbines after they are installed.  No, I do not have links, this is based on deduction and is an educated guess.  Its based on the premise that the amount of work needed fits what the Government says it should.  This is rather optimistic as things tend to go wrong.  But for the sake of argument, I take the Government figures as they are and assume they are correct.  Even overly optimistic, the Government figures do not figure in ALL the costs when figuring out the end cost to the consumer. Needless to say,  I do not like optimism without decent explanation, so yes, I was encouraged to dig and dig I did.

Continue reading