2006 Wind Installations Offset 43 Million Tons of CO2

[jpak]

http://www.renewableaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49484

The 15,200 megawatts (MW) of new wind turbines installed worldwide last year will generate enough clean electricity annually to offset the carbon dioxide emissions of 23 average-sized U.S. coal-fired power plants, according to a new Vital Signs Update from the Worldwatch Institute. The 43 million tons of carbon dioxide displaced in 2006 is equivalent to the emissions of 7,200 MW of coal-fired power plants, or nearly 8 million passenger cars.

Global wind power capacity increased almost 26 percent in 2006, exceeding 74,200 MW by year's end. Global investment in wind power was roughly $22 billion in 2006, and in Europe and North America, the power industry added more capacity in wind than it did in coal and nuclear combined. The global market for wind equipment has risen 74 percent in the past two years, leading to long backorders for wind turbine equipment in much of the world.

"Wind power is on track to soon play a major role in reducing fossil fuel dependence and slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," according to Worldwatch Senior Researcher Janet Sawin. "Already, the 43 million tons of carbon dioxide displaced by the new wind plants installed last year equaled more than 5 percent of the year's growth in global emissions. If the wind market quadruples over the next nine years — a highly plausible scenario — wind power could be reducing global emissions growth by 20 percent in 2015."

Today, Germany, Spain, and the United States generate nearly 60 percent of the world's wind power. But the industry is shifting quickly from its European and North American roots to a new center of gravity in the booming energy markets of Asia.

<more>

[GliderGuider]

1. Not bad, not bad at all

The total amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is only 26 billion tonnes per year, so you're well on your way. You've just offset another (43,000,000/26,000,000,000) = 0.17%.

Of course, the Chinese are still building 2 to 3 coal plants a week. Your guys had better get busy - they're losing the race.

[jpak]

2. 8000 MW of nuclear capacity is still off-line in Japan as a result of the Earthquake

2 reactors were taked off-line in Germany this month.

Pickering took 3 nukes out of service this summer.

Last year, global nuclear generating capacity realized a net loss of >2200 MW of generating capacity.

Your guys are running backwards...

[GliderGuider]

5. You have me all wrong. I'm totally against nuclear power

It will never survive the collapse of our technological civilization anyway, so why waste good resources on it?

I'm also against coal power for obvious reasons.

I think wind and solar are jokes within the context of modern industrial civilization. However, if we retain the ability to build such systems in the absence of an industrial civilization following the dieoff, they would be very useful technologies. Unfortunately, we'll probably have to go back to burning biomass like wood and dung.

[jpak]

6. Glad you clarified that...

:hi:

[hunter]

3. Cursed numbers!

Reality sucks.

:P

[phantom power]

4. I have a question about wind power and "offsetting"

How does it work?

I mean, the wind starts blowing, and some wind-farm somewhere starts dumping power into the grid. So far, so good. But in order for it to offset, that means that somebody has to shut down a fossil-based generator somewhere in response. The only fossil-based generation that is really convenient to just shut down on short notice is natural gas (that I'm aware of).

Can anybody explain to me how this happens in the real world? And I presume that there is an actual offsetting that is always <= the theoretical offsetting. I'd love to know how actual compares to theoretical.

[amitten]

7. Semantics. "Offsetting" should have been "replacing". Because

the wind production eliminates the need to build coal-fired plants creating an equivalent amount of power. So yes, it's not offsetting.

I think this is great news and a great start. Just imagine how this will grow and grow as it becomes a more accepted alternative to coal. The impact will become much more substantial and in the meantime we will have time to work on ever more effective solutions to the climate crisis.

Anyone trying to slant this news as something insignificant needs to discover the wonder of Prozac.

[phantom power]

8. No, it doesn't eliminate the need for coal plants. That's the point.

Do you see why?

[jpak]

11. The same is true for a new nuclear power plant

If it does not replace or result in the cancellation a proposed coal-fired plant, it offsets nothing...

Can't have it both ways...

[GliderGuider]

13. That's a very good point, actually.

I've always maintained that any new power sources we bring on line - be they coal, nuke, hydro, gas, oil, solar, wind, tide or ZPE - will only add to the total generated power. Nothing replaces anything else - it's all additive. The world's appetite for electricity will continue outstrip the supply until global economic contraction begins. Until then, we have to regard every new power plant as an addition rather than a replacement of something less desirable.

Local replacements may occur, but at a global level it's a race to the finish line, and the more power we have the sooner we'll get there.

[phantom power]

15. I almost can't bear it, but I'll explain it all again...

A nuclear plant runs at 95% up-time. The remaining 5% downtime is scheduled. You know exactly when it's going to happen, and can plan around it.

A wind-farm runs at 30% up-time. The 70% down-time is unpredictable.

If you really, truly can't see why it would be necessary to maintain totally redundant generation for the wind-farm, but not for the nuclear plant, then I'm at a loss.

I'd like to point out, before we go down this particular rat-hole any further, that my original question up above was not about off-setting coal plants in the sense of replacing them wholesale, or preventing their construction.

My original question was: when a wind-farm is operating, how does a grid manager at that moment offset emissions by turning off a fossil-based generator. How is it coordinated? What is the lag-time? How do they account for the possibility that the wind might stop blowing? What level of assurance do they need before they will actually shut off a fossil generator? a 90% probability of one hour of wind? A 99.9% probability of 10 hours of wind?

You know, the details of actually providing energy to people, without massive random outages that would turn us into a 3rd-world country even faster than it's already happening.

[jpak]

17. No - wind turbines produce electricity 65-90% of the time

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html

<snip>

A wind plant is "fueled" by the wind, which blows steadily at times and not at all at other times. Although modern utility-scale wind turbines typically operate 65% to 90% of the time, they often run at less than full capacity. Therefore, a capacity factor of 25% to 40% is common, although they may achieve higher capacity factors during windy weeks or months.

It is important to note that while capacity factor is almost entirely a matter of reliability for a fueled power plant, it is not for a wind plant—for a wind plant, it is a matter of economical turbine design. With a very large rotor and a very small generator, a wind turbine would run at full capacity whenever the wind blew and would have a 60-80% capacity factor—but it would produce very little electricity. The most electricity per dollar of investment is gained by using a larger generator and accepting the fact that the capacity factor will be lower as a result. Wind turbines are fundamentally different from fueled power plants in this respect.

If a wind turbine's capacity factor is 33%, doesn't that mean it is only running one-third of the time?

No. A wind turbine at a typical location in the Midwestern U.S. should run about 65-90% of the time. However, much of the time it will be generating at less than full capacity (see previous answer), making its capacity factor lower.

<snip>

They do not have 70% downtime.

Nuclear plants can trip unpredictably - and do all the time - how do grid managers deal with that??

With wind farms, a weather forcast can predict wind velocities well in advance of changes wind farm output (and multi-MW flywheel storage plants can extend power production from wind farms when wind speeds and output decline - this will give grid managers the time needed to order power from other facilities...)

Finally, when the wind doesn't blow, it's usually the result of a high pressure system over the area - which means it's usually sunny, which means that solar electric systems (PV or solar thermal) can generate electricity to offset power reductions from wind farms, and since daily sunset is highly predictable, grid managers could order biomass or hydro stations to spin-up in anticipation of reductions in output from solar systems...etc...

And when the wind comes back up, biomass plants can spin down (conserving biomass fuels) and hydro stations can accumulate water in their pools for fucture use...etc..

This is how a electricity production from a diverse renewable smart grid can generate power to meet demand 24/7/365...

No third world privations required...

[phantom power]

23. That is a good distinction, and yet it doesn't alter my argument...

And the reason that it doesn't alter my argument is because our hypothetical grid manager still has to cope with a high variance in power output, and that variance will occur in fundamentally unpredictable ways, since it's all a function of the weather from hour to hour.

I'm not sure what you mean by nuclear plants "tripping all the time." Are you talking about some sort of transformer thing?

[jpak]

24. "Trip" means they go off line for any number of reasons - usually safety related

Oyster Creek "tripped" two weeks ago because a feed-water pump broke down...an unpredicted event...

That event a far greater strain on managers of NJ's grid than any variability in NJ's wind turbine output.

Large changes in wind farm power output occur over many hours and/or days - they are not hard to deal with...changes in demand often occur more rapidly and are dealt with everyday...

[Dogmudgeon]

25. There are actual data for wind intermittency

Denmark has the most experience with wind, and most of the problems they have encountered have come from the grid not being able to accept incoming power due to intermittency. Although this will eventually help engineers design better grid systems, it has diminished the usability of their wind power.

There is no question that aerogenerators can produce power; the devil, as usual, is in the details.

--p!

[jpak]

27. I guess that's why they are expanding their wind generating capacity to 50-75% of total by 2025

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/todaysfeatures/2007/May/todaysfeatures_May18.xml§ion=todaysfeatures&col=

[Dogmudgeon]

31. Actually, it's unrelated

But in the service of snark, sacrifices must be made.

Denmark has committed to wind power. They are well-favored geographically to do so. But all technologies have development curves. Nothing comes off the drawing board ready to go. Why not learn from Denmark's experience?

But it makes no logical or rational sense to arbitrarily demand perfection from a technology.

Right?

--p!

[Dead_Parrot]

32. That, and being next to Norway's huge hydro resources

It makes sense for them to work together. Although, last time I checked, most countries aren't next to Norway. Maybe things have moved since? :shrug:

[razzleberry]

9. offsets don't have a 'real world'

just arbitrary money giveaways

do you think they approve your project for FREE?

[phantom power]

10. Are you saying that...

no wind farm has ever allowed a natural gas plant (for instance) to shut down while the wind was blowing? I'm cynical enough to consider that, but I've always assumed that wind-farms have, in fact, allowed fossil plants to temporarily shut down, which represents an actual, physical emissions offset.

I'm just not clear on how that actually happens, and what the real offset is compared to the theoretical maximum offset.

[razzleberry]

12. when someone is given the power to print money ...

what do you think happens?

I suppose a rather more legit project
could be given a discount.

[phantom power]

16. Does nobody understand my question?

It's not about CO2 offset trading on paper. It's not about preventing the construction of coal plants.

My question is about what happens, today, when the wind starts blowing. How (and how fast) can a grid manager shut off an existing fossil generator, to take advantage of that wind energy? Or, can they? How much assurance of that wind do they need in order to actually take a fossil generator off-line?

[GliderGuider]

18. I understand it, but I don't know the answer.

I suspect there aren't many power engineers posting here. Why not try posting it in a Drumbeat thread over on The Oil Drum? It would be interesting to know, because the ultimate level of penetration of wind power into the grid hinges on the answer. It's obviously been researched in high-penetration countries.

[Bread and Circus]

28. that's a great question.

I guess it would "offset" only if the electricity provided by wind replaced the electricity that would have been provided by a coal fired plant (or similar fossil fuel type plant). In essence, it increases supply and would only offset as long as demand remained the same. If all it did was help keep electricity prices low and thereby encouraged demand, then it didn't truly offset.

There's probably a way to figure it out with some projections, assumptions, and calculations but that would be far beyond my personal skillset. I think it's an economic question with some science added in.

[One_Life_To_Give]

14. Pitiful; Global investment in wind power was roughly $22 billion in 2006 n/t

[Dogmudgeon]

26. That's a Dick Cheney amount of money!

--p!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

20. Gee - most of the thermal energy created by nuclear power plants is dumped

into the environment. Most of those "28.7 ex-o-jewels" are not used to prevent CO2 emissions - but they do use that nuclear thermal energy to kill fish at Oyster Creek...

http://www.environmentnewjersey.org/legislature/testimony/clean-water/clean-water/oyster-creeek-nuclear-generating-station39s-pollution-of-nearby-waterways

But you don't care - do you.

Why am I not surprised...

In the Duh Dept..."It follows that in 2004, alone, nuclear energy prevented 2,500 tons of carbon dioxide release"

better check your math...

More dumb stuff...it's 43 million tons not 43 metric tons...

[NNadir]

21. I left out the word "million" after 2500 in the nuclear case. It's "2500 million tons"

It's an editorial error, not a calculational error.

Since you don't know any math or any thermodynamics, you didn't couldn't see that. Of course, since you have no idea of the values or the subject, you latch on to what is obviously a typo.

As expected, you ignore the data for how many millions of tons of carbon dioxide are released.

You couldn't care less.

I could easily calculate the thermal efficiency of coal plants in the same way, but it would go over your head and in any case, you couldn't care less about coal plants.

You reserve a special place for nuclear energy, because you are a "nuclear exceptionalist" which means that you reserve comment only for nuclear energy that applies to all forms of exajoule scale energy.

The thermal nature of coal plants is well known. You couldn't care less if coal killed a brazillion fish from thermal output. You couldn't care less if the acidification of the world's supply of coal killed a brazillion fish. You couldn't care less if the oceans throughout the world were acidified so much that all the world's coral starting dying.

Of course, you couldn't care less about the humans killed or injured by dangerous fossil fuel waste either.

In fact, replacing 121 exajoules of coal power will displace 120 exajoules of primary energy. The EIA tables give the coal figures in Quads, a unit of energy and I have converted from quad to exajoules because I'm a metric kind of guy.

You couldn't care less about the primary energy associated with coal.

Mocking the energy unit, the exajoule, with your normal ex-o-jewels" as you have done hundreds of times now, will not make it any less obvious that you do not understand units of energy.

It's rather reminiscent of creationists who mock the idea of "fish growing legs." Creationists neither understand fish nor legs, just as you do not understand energy.

Generally in most school yards there is a person who can't grasp science who makes fun of it.

I note that the wood burning plants in Maine - also dump waste heat along with the carcinogens of combustion. You couldn't care less.

In fact, all biomass systems dump waste heat, both in processing and in use. You couldn't care less.

In fact, with the exception of hydroelectricity - which is only used continuously under rare circumstances - all forms of continuous energy is thermally produced and all of it is subject to the second law of thermodynamics.

Apparently you believe that the second law of thermodynamics - about which you couldn't care less or know less - only operates in the nuclear case. This is yet another example of how you attempt to isolate nuclear energy from its alternatives.

The alternative to nuclear is not your silly solar toys. It is not wind. It is coal.

Nuclear power plants operate at 90% of nameplate capacity typically, coal plants at around 70% of nameplate, gas at around 30 (in most places except places like Maine and California where it is used for baseload) wind at around 25% and solar - a trivial form of energy - at less than 20%.

You couldn't care less about coal, which is why you have never bothered to try to understand the most basic things about it.

[jpak]

22. The word "you" was used 23 times in that post - I'm impressed

:snicker:

[Bread and Circus]

29. He can read minds you know. Best not to look directly into his avatar's eyes...

they are an oracle into your soul. It tells him exactly what you do and don't care about.

[Systematic Chaos]

30. Only problem is with most of the anti-nuclearists

about all you get is "See Spot Run".

:boring: