In Colorado, "clean" wind turbines increase emissions from coal

[wtmusic]

"Wind energy promises a clean, renewable resource that uses no fossil fuel and generates zero emissions. Careful examination of the data suggests that the numbers do not add up as expected.

The “must take” provisions of Colorado’s Renewable Portfolio Standard require that other sources of generation, such as coal plants, must be “cycled” to accommodate wind power. This cycling makes coal generating units operate much less efficiently…so inefficiently, that these units produce significantly greater emissions.

This study reviews the data that supports this conclusion, outlines mitigation measures which can be used to realize the full potential of wind generation, and provides recommendations for policy makers."

http://bentekenergy.com/WindCoalandGasStudy.aspx

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. Gas-industry report claims wind-energy standards lead to pollution

http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/04/19/daily11.html

Monday, April 19, 2010, 6:53pm MDT | Modified: Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 10:00pm

Gas-industry report claims wind-energy standards lead to pollution

Denver Business Journal - by Cathy Proctor

A new report from Colorado's natural gas industry says increased use of wind energy indirectly results in raised pollution levels produced by some coal-fired power plants along the Front Range.

Critics say the report, released Monday, is flawed.

The report recommends curbing the use of wind energy during the next one or two years to levels that match power output at existing natural gas-fired power plants -- and building more natural gas plants in the long term.

The report -- titled "How Less Became More: Wind, Power and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado Energy Market" -- was done by http://profiles.portfolio.com/company/us/co/evergreen/bentek_energy_llc/2466200/">Bentek Energy LLC, an Evergreen-based consulting company, for the http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/related_content.html?topic=Independent%20Petroleum%20Association%20of%20Mountain%20States">Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, a trade group for the Rocky Mountain oil and gas industry.

...

[wtmusic]

2. .

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

[joshcryer]

7. They want to build gas powered load balancing plants.

There isn't enough wind in Colorado for it to be relevant for some time though.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. NNadir is employing independent contractors now, I see. n/t

[wtmusic]

4. Hey, didn't expect a scrap metal rep on this thread.

Doesn't that make your mouth water?

[diane in sf]

16. lol

[kristopher]

5. Very good. Another "progressive" making a baseless attack on renewable energy

Complete with carefully crafted photo probably traceable to Koch Industries or the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Very good job, little grasshopper.


Doesn’t Wind Power Need Backup Generation?

Isn’t More Fossil Fuel Burned with Wind Than Without, Due to Backup Requirements?

In a power system, it is necessary to maintain a continuous balance between production and consumption. System operators deploy controllable generation to follow the change in total demand, not the variation from a single generator or customer load. When wind is added to the system, the variability in the net load becomes the operating target for the system operator. It is not necessary and, indeed, it would be quite costly for grid operators to follow the variation in generation from a single generating plant or customer load. “Backup” generating plants dedicated to wind plants — or to any other generation plant or load for that matter—are not required, and would actually be a poor and unnecessarily costly use of power-generation resources.

Regarding whether the addition of wind generation results in more combustion of fossil fuels, a wind-generated kilowatthour displaces a kilowatthour that would have been generated by another source—usually one that burns a fossil fuel. The wind-generated kilowatthour therefore avoids the fuel consumption and emissions associated with that fossil-fuel kilowatthour. The incremental reserves (spinning or nonspinning) required by wind’s variability and uncertainty, however, themselves consume fuel and release emissions, so the net savings are somewhat reduced. But what quantity of reserves is required? Numerous studies conducted to date—many of which have been summarized in previous wind-specific special issues of IEEE Power & Energy Magazine—have found that the reserves required by wind are only a small fraction of the aggregate wind generation and vary with the level of wind output. Generally, some of these reserves are spinning and some are nonspinning. The regulating and load-following plants could be forced to operate at a reduced level of efficiency, resulting in increased fuel consumption and increased emissions per unit of output.

A conservative example serves to illustrate the fuel-consumption and emissions impacts stemming from wind’s regulation requirements. Compare three situations:
1) a block of energy is provided by fossil-fueled plants;
2) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that require no incremental reserves; and
3) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that do have incremental reserve requirements.

It is assumed that the average fleet fossil-fuel efficiency is unchanged between situations one and two. This might not be precisely correct, but a sophisticated operational simulation is required to address this issue quantitatively. In fact, this has been done in several studies, which bear out the general conclusions reached in this simple example.

In situation one, an amount of fuel is burned to produce the block of energy.

In situation two, all of that fuel is saved and all of the associated emissions are avoided.

In situation three, it is assumed that 3% of the fossil generation is needed to provide reserves, all of these reserves are spinning, and that this generation incurs a 25% efficiency penalty. The corresponding fuel consumption necessary to provide the needed reserves is then 4% of the fuel required to generate the entire block of energy. Hence, the actual fuel and emissions savings percentage in situation three relative to situation one is 96% rather than 100%. The great majority of initially estimated fuel savings does in fact occur, however, and the notion that wind’s variations would actually increase system fuel consumption does not withstand scrutiny.

A study conducted by the United Kingdom Energy Research Center (UKERC) supports this example. UKERC reviewed four studies that directly addressed whether there are greater CO2 emissions from adding wind generation due to increasing operating reserves and operating fossil-fuel plants at a reduced efficiency level. The UKERC determined that the “efficiency penalty” was negligible to 7% for wind penetrations of up to 20%.

Special Masters Presentation by International Electronic and Electrical Engineers

Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 IEEE power & energy magazine
Digital Object Identifi er 10.1109/MPE.2009.934268
1540-7977/09/$26.00©2009 IEEE

By Michael Milligan, Kevin Porter, Edgar DeMeo, Paul Denholm, Hannele Holttinen, Brendan Kirby, Nicholas Miller, Andrew Mills, Mark O’Malley, Matthew Schuerger, and Lennart Soder

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

[joshcryer]

6. You clearly didn't read the link.

[kristopher]

8. Last paragraph at link

The Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States (IPAMS), formed in 1974, is a non-profit trade association representing more than 400 independent oil and natural gas producers, service and supply companies, banking and financial institutions and industry consultants committed to environmentally responsible oil and natural gas development in the Intermountain West. This study was commissioned by IPAMS.

More information about IPAMS can be located at http://ipams.org/

[joshcryer]

9. Do you have an alternate explaination for the increased coal emissions?

I'd like to hear it.

[kristopher]

11. They are playing with numbers to arrive at a predetermined conclusion sounds right.

Doesn’t Wind Power Need Backup Generation? Isn’t More Fossil Fuel Burned with Wind Than Without, Due to Backup Requirements?

Doesn’t Wind Power Need Backup Generation? Isn’t More Fossil Fuel Burned with Wind Than Without, Due to Backup Requirements?

In a power system, it is necessary to maintain a continuous balance between production and consumption. System operators deploy controllable generation to follow the change in total demand, not the variation from a single generator or customer load. When wind is added to the system, the variability in the net load becomes the operating target for the system operator. It is not necessary and, indeed, it would be quite costly for grid operators to follow the variation in generation from a single generating plant or customer load.

“Backup” generating plants dedicated to wind plants—or to any other generation plant or load for that matter—are not required, and would actually be a poor and unnecessarily costly use of power-generation resources.

Regarding whether the addition of wind generation results in more combustion of fossil fuels, a wind-generated kilowatthour displaces a kilowatthour that would have been generated by another source—usually one that burns a fossil fuel. The wind-generated kilowatthour therefore avoids the fuel consumption and emissions associated with that fossil-fuel kilowatthour. The incremental reserves (spinning or nonspinning) required by wind’s variability and uncertainty, however, themselves consume fuel and release emissions, so the net savings are somewhat reduced. But what quantity of reserves is required? Numerous studies conducted to date—many of which have been summarized in previous wind-specific special issues of IEEE Power & Energy Magazine—have found that the reserves required by wind are only a small fraction of the aggregate wind generation and vary with the level of wind output. Generally, some of these reserves are spinning and some are nonspinning. The regulating and load-following plants could be forced to operate at a reduced level of efficiency, resulting in increased fuel consumption and increased emissions per unit of output.

A conservative example serves to illustrate the fuel-consumption and emissions impacts stemming from wind’s regulation requirements. Compare three situations:
1) a block of energy is provided by fossil-fueled plants;
2) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that require no incremental reserves; and
3) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that do have incremental reserve requirements.

It is assumed that the average fleet fossil-fuel efficiency is unchanged between situations one and two. This might not be precisely correct, but a sophisticated operational simulation is required to address this issue quantitatively. In fact, this has been done in several studies, which bear out the general conclusions reached in this simple example.

In situation one, an amount of fuel is burned to produce the block of energy.

In situation two, all of that fuel is saved and all of the associated emissions are avoided.

In situation three, it is assumed that 3% of the fossil generation is needed to provide reserves, all of these reserves are spinning, and that this generation incurs a 25% efficiency penalty. The corresponding fuel consumption necessary to provide the needed reserves is then 4% of the fuel required to generate the entire block of energy. Hence, the actual fuel and emissions savings percentage in situation three relative to situation one is 96% rather than 100%. The great majority of initially estimated fuel savings does in fact occur, however, and the notion that wind’s variations would actually increase system fuel consumption does not withstand scrutiny.

A study conducted by the United Kingdom Energy Research Center (UKERC) supports this example. UKERC reviewed four studies that directly addressed whether there are greater CO2 emissions from adding wind generation due to increasing operating reserves and operating fossil-fuel plants at a reduced efficiency level. The UKERC determined that the “efficiency penalty” was negligible to 7% for wind penetrations of up to 20%.

Special Masters Presentation by International Electronic and Electrical Engineers

Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 IEEE power & energy magazine
Digital Object Identifi er 10.1109/MPE.2009.934268
1540-7977/09/$26.00©2009 IEEE

By Michael Milligan, Kevin Porter, Edgar DeMeo, Paul Denholm, Hannele Holttinen, Brendan Kirby, Nicholas Miller, Andrew Mills, Mark O’Malley, Matthew Schuerger, and Lennart Soder

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

We see a lot of that from the nuclear industry also.

[joshcryer]

12. They're the gas industry, they want to build new plants.

And they will whether or not the report is correct. It's clear that the pitifully small amount of wind in Colorado is contributing to the increased emissions at the coal plants though.

[kristopher]

13. Wipe the drool off...

"the notion that wind’s variations would actually increase system fuel consumption does not withstand scrutiny."



Doesn’t Wind Power Need Backup Generation? Isn’t More Fossil Fuel Burned with Wind Than Without, Due to Backup Requirements?

Doesn’t Wind Power Need Backup Generation? Isn’t More Fossil Fuel Burned with Wind Than Without, Due to Backup Requirements?

In a power system, it is necessary to maintain a continuous balance between production and consumption. System operators deploy controllable generation to follow the change in total demand, not the variation from a single generator or customer load. When wind is added to the system, the variability in the net load becomes the operating target for the system operator. It is not necessary and, indeed, it would be quite costly for grid operators to follow the variation in generation from a single generating plant or customer load.

“Backup” generating plants dedicated to wind plants—or to any other generation plant or load for that matter—are not required, and would actually be a poor and unnecessarily costly use of power-generation resources.

Regarding whether the addition of wind generation results in more combustion of fossil fuels, a wind-generated kilowatthour displaces a kilowatthour that would have been generated by another source—usually one that burns a fossil fuel. The wind-generated kilowatthour therefore avoids the fuel consumption and emissions associated with that fossil-fuel kilowatthour. The incremental reserves (spinning or nonspinning) required by wind’s variability and uncertainty, however, themselves consume fuel and release emissions, so the net savings are somewhat reduced. But what quantity of reserves is required? Numerous studies conducted to date—many of which have been summarized in previous wind-specific special issues of IEEE Power & Energy Magazine—have found that the reserves required by wind are only a small fraction of the aggregate wind generation and vary with the level of wind output. Generally, some of these reserves are spinning and some are nonspinning. The regulating and load-following plants could be forced to operate at a reduced level of efficiency, resulting in increased fuel consumption and increased emissions per unit of output.

A conservative example serves to illustrate the fuel-consumption and emissions impacts stemming from wind’s regulation requirements. Compare three situations:
1) a block of energy is provided by fossil-fueled plants;

2) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that require no incremental reserves; and

3) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that do have incremental reserve requirements.

It is assumed that the average fleet fossil-fuel efficiency is unchanged between situations one and two. This might not be precisely correct, but a sophisticated operational simulation is required to address this issue quantitatively. In fact, this has been done in several studies, which bear out the general conclusions reached in this simple example.

In situation one, an amount of fuel is burned to produce the block of energy.

In situation two, all of that fuel is saved and all of the associated emissions are avoided.

In situation three, it is assumed that 3% of the fossil generation is needed to provide reserves, all of these reserves are spinning, and that this generation incurs a 25% efficiency penalty. The corresponding fuel consumption necessary to provide the needed reserves is then 4% of the fuel required to generate the entire block of energy. Hence, the actual fuel and emissions savings percentage in situation three relative to situation one is 96% rather than 100%. The great majority of initially estimated fuel savings does in fact occur, however, and the notion that wind’s variations would actually increase system fuel consumption does not withstand scrutiny.

A study conducted by the United Kingdom Energy Research Center (UKERC) supports this example. UKERC reviewed four studies that directly addressed whether there are greater CO2 emissions from adding wind generation due to increasing operating reserves and operating fossil-fuel plants at a reduced efficiency level. The UKERC determined that the “efficiency penalty” was negligible to 7% for wind penetrations of up to 20%.

Special Masters Presentation by International Electronic and Electrical Engineers

Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 IEEE power & energy magazine
Digital Object Identifi er 10.1109/MPE.2009.934268
1540-7977/09/$26.00©2009 IEEE

By Michael Milligan, Kevin Porter, Edgar DeMeo, Paul Denholm, Hannele Holttinen, Brendan Kirby, Nicholas Miller, Andrew Mills, Mark O’Malley, Matthew Schuerger, and Lennart Soder

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

[joshcryer]

14. You don't think that the natural gas industry won't build new natural gas plants in Colorado?

You want to put money on that?

[kristopher]

18. Were you stoned during the part about double negatives in English class?

You were probably there and straight. Judging by the way you've taken the claim in the OP in a totally incorrect direction, it's more likely you suffer the same thinking affliction as Sister Sarah.

The OP claims increased CO2 emissions due to wind in Colorado. That is demonstrably false.

[joshcryer]

23. The OP claims increased CO2 emissions at several coal plants due to wind.

[joshcryer]

10. Unfortunately the full report requires you to jump through hoops (or even pay)...

...if anyone has it please shoot it to me at joshcryer dot gmail dot com. I live in Colorado and it would be interesting to see the actual report.

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Mr. K does that often. But his time, he's clean.

It's available via Open Access at the link.

However, if you read it, you'll see that it isn't a balls-to-the-wall battle-cry for wind energy he often uses it for. Some of those myths that get debunked show that wind is not all unicorns and leprechauns. A good technology to develop, sure, but no more the Holy Grail than fission. Kristopher may be thinking that we WON'T read it since he posts it so often; but at least five of us have pored through MZJ's magnum opus.

Now, if K would only share Yablokov's $150 PNAS Chernobyl paper with us, from a server or by e-mail request. It's completely legal to do so under Fair Use.

--d!

[Kolesar]

17. This thread is about backup generation requirements

and you turned it into a "personality thing".

[Dogmudgeon]

19. A "personality thing"? Moi?

Edited to correct misquote.

You should read more carefully. Everything I said was valid, and no where did I say anything about the Personality that was defamatory. He actually does make a habit of arguing with inaccessible material. If he has the academic skills he claims, he'd know that's a fairly common and dishonest argument tactic. People have gotten bounced from grad school for much smaller infractions. He ought not do it -- unless he wants a reputation as an Internet Crank.

If you are interested in correcting the conduct of E/E participants, there's an example where someone told a DUer he disagreed with to "wipe the drool off ..." right above here.

Then, just last night, I remarked that a wind project had run into financial difficulties, but I looked forward to its rescue and re-start by DelMarVa Power. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x243112#243284">You can read it here. It was interpreted as a personal affront instead of what it was, recognition of a hopeful development (though the numbers given don't make much sense).

In case you were wondering, there's no shortage of "common scolds" on the Internet or at DU.

--d!

[kristopher]

20. Nothing you said was valid.

It is my habit to include links whenever possible to specifically cited papers. You speak as if it matters to when when clearly that is pure hogwash. The paper you said upthread was open access is indeed open access, but it isn't by Jacobson, so you obviously didn't even bother to take even a cursory look at what was posted.

The link upthread is a special from the International Electrical and Electronic Engineer's journal and has about a half dozen well known authors signed onto it.

And in spite of your desires and effort (5 of you coordinating), Jacobson's work is valid.

Finally, I respond in kind to people here. If you are claiming concern for wind, as you obviously did in the instance you pointed to, it is going to be seen in light of your past efforts to denigrate renewables. You have been engaged in that behavior for as long as I've been here, so don't bother to fucking deny it. It is only recently and after I've started pointing out that the antirenewable position of nuclear supporters here is inconsistent with the environmental values the underpin the professed concern about climate change that you and your friends suddenly started to slip some greenwashing language into the mix.

You weren't trying to be hopeful about wind any more than the words "May you live in interesting times" is a well meant wish.

[Dogmudgeon]

24. Bother to fucking

Concerning citations, I am grateful for the open access postings. But you are the most demanding of all DU E/E participants, and you frequently post without citation. I have read every paper listed here that has been in debate, even if I have had to go looking for it, providing I have been able to get it. Your Yablokov spam is still inaccessible for less than $150, and Jacobson's Survey was unavailable for months.

When you hold others to a high standard, you have no right to complain that others expect the same from you.

You can make restricted studies available to select discussants without charge, per Fair Use. If you have a server for binaries, zip the file with a password, upload it, then post its location and password here. Or, offer it in e-mail by request. If you can't do that much, then all you are doing is flaunting your privilege.

The rest was just more of your usual stiff-necked bluster. No one is conspiring against you or "coordinating" -- I know we've (the five of us? six?) read the paper because we are able to refer to its arguments intelligently. You're not "reply(ing) in kind", you're lashing out at posts categorically, based on who posted what. And stop with the mind-reading act, telling me what I think. Not only is it a vulgar habit, but you've been consistently wrong. You don't know what I think and you do not appear to be inclined to listen/read/inquire.

--d!

[joshcryer]

22. FYI, I can access 90% of all papers posted. I'm talking about the paper/study in the OP.

It's behind a wall that wants information and I'm not willing to give mine out.

[joshcryer]

21. You got it from their link? They want your email addy/address/phone#.