Nobrainer’s Think Tank

In Parts 1 & 2, I noted some egregious examples of people saying that increases in wind turbine output don’t reduce over all CO2 emissions. In both cases the authors cited work in support of their writing that on basic inspection proved to contradict what they were claiming. Where last I left off, I was writing how Richard S. Courtney was doing a horrid job of representing how the current grid operates.

Following some of what Courtney wrote are some choice excerpts from a lengthy document, Renewable Electricity and the Grid, the Challenge of Variability, that I ran across whist trying to find one of Courtney’s sources. The original source as well that as this document contradict Courtney.

Said Courtney:

Each thermal power station is designed to provide an output of electricity. It can only
provide very little more or very little less than this output

… only small variation to the output of each power station is possible.

But operating a power station at less than its optimum output severely reduces its efficiency so it has little reduction to its fuel consumption and emissions although it supplies less electricity.

Says this newer document (emphasis mine):

Output from steam plants can be reduced to about 50 per cent of design without much difficulty… The main effect is that by operating at reduced output, efficiency goes down slightly.

Actual CO2 savings are dependent upon what fossil fuel plant is displaced. These savings are reduced by efficiency losses in thermal plant affected by intermittency and additional use of reserve and response services. In practice, these losses are a small proportion of the energy provided. CO2 savings are, within a few percentage points, directly linked to the energy that renewable stations generate (Gross et al, 2006).

On the UK National Grid system there is approximately 1.5GW of ‘spinning reserve’ – typically, this takes the form of a large power station that is paid to produce at less than its full output. Such a station might have four generating sets each of 660MW, giving a total output of 2.64GW, but might only be operating at 2GW [with 500MW being generated per set] with the steam boiler full but the steam valve not fully open. On request from the National Grid control centre, this valve can open and deliver an extra 640MW in 20 to 30 seconds. This requires the boiler air fans and the coal feeders to increase output accordingly. The greater the total load on the system, and the
greater the expectation of large fluctuations (e.g. at the end of popular TV programmes), the larger the proportion of spinning reserve set by the NGT. It is worth noting that the cost of such spinning reserve is not high, as is often erroneously stated. The efficiency of a plant might change from, say, 37 to 36.5 per cent if the output of the set is dropped from 660MW to 500MW (i.e. 160MW spinning reserve). The fuel penalty involved (about 1.5 per cent) is tiny compared to the total amount of fuel passing through the power station.

In Part 4 I’ll show some data from one of my favorite plants that, like just about everything else, contradicts what Courtney wrote.

As you may have heard, the new AG in Virginia wrote something that is absolutely galling to people who have low reading comprehension abilities.

“It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including ’sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ ‘gender expression,’ or like classification, as a protected class within its nondiscrimination policy, absent specific authorization from the General Assembly,” Cuccinelli wrote.

Scandalous! Trying to provide guidance on the current state of the law in… the state.

So let’s trot out the opposition.

C. Richard Cranwell, state Democratic Party chairman, said Virginia’s colleges and universities were more than capable of setting policies that work for them “without meddling from Ken Cuccinelli.”

One could only hope that the Virginia Democrats, and all Democrats across the country, were actually interested in the avoidance of meddling for those who can determine their own priorities. (Although there’s the very real and possible interpretation that meddling is required because most people are incapable of doing anything competently.)

Let me start by saying that I’m not the world’s biggest fan of wind energy. I doubt that I’ve been entirely fair to it in the past. I’m not convinced it’s really that great an investment. Although I certainly think it’s neat, and I even like seeing wind turbines on the horizon. However, some people are making critiques of wind that are pure rubbish. So why not spend some time taking out the trash?

I regularly see the argument that wind can’t reduce carbon output much if at all.

Here’s an example from the Canada’s National Press, which says, and I quote, “Der Spiegel reports that ‘Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram’”. Umm, no. Says Der Spiegel:

Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

By Anselm Waldermann

Despite Europe’s boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram.

The National Press fabricated a quote that is at odds with the article being reference. It’s clear from reading the actual article that they’re talking about European emissions not being reduced, not “Germany’s CO2 emissions.” In fact, the article makes the point that German CO2 emissions have declined because of its increased use of renewable energy. European emissions aren’t falling because Germany is selling it’s unused carbon credits to other nations who are then emitting carbon; such is life under a cap & trade system when the cap isn’t being lowered.

As I was reading this article today, all I could think was that this deal would backfire horribly. So I decided to write this post and schedule it to show up one year from now in 2010.

President Obama offered to consider scrapping plans for a missile defense shield in Europe if Russia helps rein in Iran’s nuclear program, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported.

The article said Obama wrote to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to tell him Russia’s aid in resolving the threat from Iran would make the missile shield plans unnecessary, according to an account from Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

A senior administration official told FOX News that Obama sent a letter to Medvedev but “we won’t comment on the specifics.”

Obama inherited plans to build the system in Poland and the Czech Republic from the Bush administration, but the new administration has equivocated over the project. Though the plans were put in place to deter nations like Iran and North Korea from launching attacks and developing nuclear weapons, Russia has interpreted the planned installation as a threat.

The senior administration official said the U.S. will continue to “consult with the Czech Republic and Poland on the program,” but will also continue to review the plan.

“We’ll be evaluating the future of the program based on a number of factors … whether it will work, whether it will be cost-effective, whether it will reduce the threat and whether that threat can be reduced though diplomacy with Russia and our NATO allies,” the official said.

Reuters reported last month that the Obama administration would at least review the plans for a missile defense shield in Europe, provided Russia helps curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Clinton is expected to meet with Russia’s foreign minister in Geneva later this week.

State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said last month that the U.S. wants to “engage” Russia on the issue of the missile defense and review their proposals to “counter missiles from rogue states.”

The snowstorm headed for the provided little more than a light dusting (WOOHOO!).

Nothing to see here. Please move along.

Good stuff.