Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
26. I think people deliberately spreading known misinformation like this should be banned from EE
Fri May 24, 2013, 10:20 AM
May 2013

Using this forum as a platform for disseminating misinformation and trolling is wrong. It is within the purview of the hosts to act on such behavior.


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 effi ciency level. The UKERC determined that the “efficiency penalty” was negligible to 7% for wind penetrations of up to 20%.


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

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I very much want to hear from those at DU who repeatedly claim that this profile is wrong. Buzz Clik May 2013 #1
Renewables Jesus has the answer. wtmusic May 2013 #2
This study of predictions shows your sources are the least reliable of all available. kristopher May 2013 #4
Excellent rebuttal, as usual. Stay after them. nt ladjf May 2013 #18
The Original Post Reality Check Wilms May 2013 #3
You forgot the EIA wtmusic May 2013 #5
See article in post 4 kristopher May 2013 #6
Nah. I posted a comment about "their" data, too Wilms May 2013 #7
What's your point? wtmusic May 2013 #9
Written by the president of an "alternative energy" company who stands to profit immensely wtmusic May 2013 #8
Really now. Is a photo of fat Rex Tillerson supposed to prove something? wtmusic May 2013 #11
First off, that isn't Tillerson. Wilms May 2013 #13
Apology accepted. wtmusic May 2013 #15
I will admit that I haven't read the article. Archaic May 2013 #10
The graph forecasts a drop in coal use (by percentage) wtmusic May 2013 #12
I sure hope somebody comes up with a very stronge CCS program. Archaic May 2013 #22
Read it, and will await the 2nd article Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #14
Wind is the fastest growing in terms of percentage. It's insignificant, before and after. wtmusic May 2013 #16
See below. Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #17
2012: 100GW total global PV -- By 2018 Additional 220GW only rooftop to be added kristopher May 2013 #19
I'm aware of that, but am skeptical. Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #20
Solar HAS come down to a level where it is competitive kristopher May 2013 #21
A number of 100mw to 300mw solar pv plants will be built over the next 18 months- in the US. FogerRox May 2013 #27
Wind is "cheap" because of the production tax credit wtmusic May 2013 #23
As regards CO2, Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #24
No, not terrible. Natgas generates about 60% as much CO2 as coal wtmusic May 2013 #25
I think people deliberately spreading known misinformation like this should be banned from EE kristopher May 2013 #26
Are utilities required to buy the cheapest power? FogerRox May 2013 #28
No, that is when they turn of fossil fuels and use wind instead. kristopher May 2013 #29
Interesting, but you do realize, I hope, that a backup is always going to be necessary. Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #31
Your meaning isn't clear, but I think the IEEE article is. kristopher May 2013 #32
Neither agree nor disagree Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #30
You seem to be studiously avoiding the subject of the production tax credit wtmusic May 2013 #33
Not sure where you're coming from, Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #34
Ah, the credit is only temporary. wtmusic May 2013 #35
...and it will never store more energy ever in all eternity, right? Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #36
We don't have all eternity. wtmusic May 2013 #37
Risk management Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #38
Based on your analogy, you would support an immediate evacuation of Wyoming. wtmusic May 2013 #39
You're not getting it Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #41
Renewables do nothing about fossil fuel usage 4dsc May 2013 #40
See below Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #42
But on the other hand... GliderGuider May 2013 #43
I see your hand and raise you... Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #44
A dropping % indicates a linear rise in concentration... GliderGuider May 2013 #45
True, but as I tried to point out, that's the dog that's not barking Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #47
China took in our washing - that took care of part of it. nt GliderGuider May 2013 #48
Maybe the linear CO2 concentration growth trend is coincidental? Socialistlemur May 2013 #49
Plants are known to grow better at greater CO2 concentrations, Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #50
After further review CO2 increase is constrained by ocean Socialistlemur May 2013 #52
I've been wanting to test whether the seasonal variability is in fact increasing, Benton D Struckcheon Jun 2013 #59
In PPM terms there is a slight uptrend in variability Benton D Struckcheon Jun 2013 #60
Renewables are not a substitute for oil 4dsc May 2013 #51
Same thing: as oil supplies dwindle prices increase..renewables kick in Socialistlemur May 2013 #53
You miss the whole point 4dsc May 2013 #54
You would have to show why solar wont do the job eventually Socialistlemur May 2013 #55
There's this little problem about nighttime, and when the wind dies. wtmusic May 2013 #56
I think you mean the wind power industry? Socialistlemur May 2013 #57
Natural gas peaking plants fill in the gaps when solar and wind aren't working wtmusic May 2013 #58
My energy utility blew up an adjacent neighborhood about 2 years ago CreekDog May 2013 #46
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»The Renewable Energy Real...»Reply #26