Why Wind Power Does Not Greatly Reduce Fossil Fuel Use

The problem with wind power is that electric utilities have to be prepared at any time for their power production to just stop on short notice.  So they must keep fossil fuel plants on hot standby, meaning they are basically burning fuel but not producing any power.  Storage technologies and the use of relatively fast-start plants like gas turbines mitigates this problem a bit but does not come close to eliminating it.  This is why wind power simply as a source contributing to the grid makes very little sense.  Here is Kent Hawkins of Master Resource going into a lot more depth:

How do electricity systems accommodate the nature of wind and solar? They do this by having redundant capacity almost equalling the renewable capacities as shown in Figures 5 and 6 for two jurisdictions that have heavily invested in wind and solar – Germany and Ontario, Canada.

Pt I Fig 5

Figure 5 – Duplicate capacity requirements for Germany in 2015.

Source: See note 4, sub point a.

 

Part 1 Fig 6

Figure 6 – Duplicate capacity requirements for Ontario, Canada, in 2018

Source: Ontario Power Authority[5]

In both figures, the left-hand columns are peak demand requirements and include all the dispatchable capacity that is required to reliably meet demand and provide operating reserve. In the right-hand columns, if you look very carefully, you can see the capacity credit for wind by the slight reduction in “Peak Demand + Op Reserve.” In summary, when wind and solar are added, the other generation plants are not displaced, and, relative to requirements, wind and solar are virtually all duplicate capacity.

Wind might make more sense in niche applications where it is coupled into some kind of production process that can run intermittently and have its product stored.  I think T Boone Pickens suggested having wind produce hydrogen from water, for example, and then store the hydrogen as fuel.  This makes more sense because the total power output of a wind plant over a year can be predicted with far more certainty than the power output at any given minute of a day.  This is one reason why the #1 historic use of windpower outside of transportation has been to pump water -- because the point is to fill the tank once a week or drain the field over a month's time and not to make absolutely sure the field is draining at 10:52 am.  The intermittent power is stored in the form of water that has been moved from one place to another.

158 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Amazing the number of fossil deadbeats who demand Nanny-State service on a silver platter from private, anonymous strangers.

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/patchmedia/princeton_university_professor_compares_climate_change_deal_to_appeasing_hitler/#comment-3272754496

Figure it out yourself.

Pay what you owe.

Tu quoque logical fallacies are irrelevant red herrings.

It's easy to pay what fossil debt you owe if you don't go into fossil debt by fossil waste dumping beyond your own land's power to weather and sequester your fossil wastes.

Pay what you owe.

Kinda a low bar to consider simply paying one's own way some sort of special 'virtue'.

Normal people don't even think about eating someone else! Much less that person having to be grateful for it! - Star Lord, Guardians of the Galaxy.

You prefer civility?

Seriously?

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/desmogblog/how_a_libertarian_think_tank_is_trying_to_correct_the_quotdegeneratequot_climate_science_debate_in_w/#comment-3226129235

No sale on that.

You prefer people who don't tell you what you don't want to hear.

NO ONE effectively refuted my statements,therefore it is they and you who prefer people who don't tell you what you don't want to hear. No evidence, no sincere effort to produce an argument that persuades, only invective and insults. Your contributions supply nothing productive or educative to this discussion. Your metaphysical status is less than zero. Im outa here.

No one? Not ever?

Not a single statement?

Not once?

That is a very bold claim.

Science does not proceed by persuasive arguments of rhetoric, but solely by inference fitting best all observation with least assumption, exception or omission possible (though no more than possible) until new observation lead to amended or new best fit.

So whatever one's 'metaphysical status', be it 'virtuous' or 'civil', or whatever other red herring you choose to troll with your irrefutable statements that windmills don't look pretty enough for you or that Warren is dreamy, it remains that you do not pay when you dump your fossil wastes, or include in your reasoning your obligation to make such payments, and so you ride free on the Nanny State cleaning up your messes.

When this is pointed out to you, do you make the least effort to rise above slovenly, selfish, invidious vice? No. You complain that others strive for virtue and claim they put on airs they never did.

Shame on you, for being shameless.

Pay what you owe.

Don't feed the troll. He has contributed nothing of note to the thread and is deliberately wasting your time and energy.