Kent Hawkins offers Reasonable Doubt About Wind's Carbon Mitigation Effectiveness

Kent Hawkins, is a "principal" of the MasterResource blog. According to his MasterResource biography, Hawkins

holds electrical engineering degrees from Royal Military College of Canada and Queen’s University.

In his professional career, Mr. Hawkins specialized in communications systems engineering, operations research, and management consulting. The majority of his working life was in the information technology industry with such companies as IBM and EDS.

Since retirement, Kent has devoted a substantial amount of time to the study of electricity generation and distribution policies. His commentary and studies have been published in national magazines and newspapers in Canada, and, most recently, in the quarterly publication of the U. S. Association for Energy Economics, Dialogue.

Hawkins' association with MasterResource is not by itself a recommendation, since MasterResource supports what I can only take to be an ideologically driven view of climate change, and on its climate change posts should be vetted for knowledge pollution. What ever Hawkins ideology, it does not appear to impact his research method on energy issues. Hawkins offers views that are clearly falsifiable, his facts come from reputable sources, his logic seems sound, and as of yet, the wind industry has been unable to muster more than a weak critique of Hawkins conclusions.

it is easy to understand why Hawkins' work is attractive to the Libertarian leaning perspective of MasterResource. Hawkins lays out his case to the International Association for Energy Economicsin an essay titled, Integrating Renewables: Have Policymakers Faced the RealitiesHawkins states: "The current push for government intervention in electricity generation rests on one or more of these policy objectives:"

Reduced reliance on fossil fuels
Substantially reduced CO2 emissions
Energy independence within a political jurisdiction
Right policy mix for the short and long term
Sustainable economic growth with 21st century industries
Reliable and economic electricity supply.

Hawkins then asks a question that is boh fair and reasonable,

Can renewables help achieve these goals, especially in regard to environmental improvement?

Hawkings then answers his own rhetorical question,

A close look at the realities suggest that they cannot, and that as a consequence, public policy support for these energy sources may be fleeting, because they:

Stress the other electricity system elements, which results in increased fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
Have no capacity value, the most important measure of performance
Force inappropriate grid upgrades
Do not provide the needed 21st century economic development
Reduce electricity system reliability
Increase costs

Thus Hawkins does not assume the absence of a link between green house gas emissions and climate change. Rather he notes that energy policy assumes such a link existed, and is directed to control greenhouse gas emissions. His questions then are not about the existence of climate change, but about the effectiveness of mitigation policy. People like me, who believe that greenhouse gas -climate change link is real, should be concerned about the effectiveness of mitigation policy. This is not an issue that can not be determined by an ideological vetting of Hawkins.

Hawkins states his case in a hypothesis, null-hypothesis form. The hypothesis is that "renewables help achieve these goals." The null-hypothesis is

they (renewables) cannot (achieve policy goals) . . .

Hawkins still needs to prove his case. By the rules of Karl Popper's theory of scientific knowledge, true statements are those which cannot be disproved through strong support for the null-hypothesis. The truth of a hypothesis is affirmed by demonstrating that evidence does not support its falsification. In order for Hawkins to demonstrated he is correct, he must demonstrate that available evidence that supports the null-hypothesis.

Hawkins states the null-hypothesis briefly at the beginning of a recent 4-part essay in MasterResource.

There is no convincing proof that utility-scale wind plants reduce fossil fuel consumption or CO2 emissions. Although there are are a number of reports claiming gains can be made that will combat climate change, free us from fossil fuel “addiction,” provide energy independence and needed 21st century industrial development, such reports are not substantiated by definitive and comprehensive analyses.

The Hawkins essay is in fact a review of three case studies found in two reports on the effects of wind integration on carbon emissions. The first teport, titled The impact of wind generated electricity on fossil fuel consumption and written by C. le Pair & K. de Groot

commissioned by offers an account of fossil fuel use in support roles for wind generation in the Netherlands. The second report, titled HOW LESS BECAME MORE... Wind, Power and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado Energy Market and commissioned by the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States by Bentec Energy. The reports finding would appear to not be biased by the payers interests, since the report seems to suggest that investments in renewables acyually serve the financial interests of the fossil fuel industry.

C. le Pair & K. de Groot indicate that they are testing of Hawkins nul-hypothesis:

Kent Hawkins recently published a study of the technical characteristics of gas powered electricity generators, which are used for back-up of other units. He concluded “The general conclusion is clear: industrial wind power does not produce the claimed benefits of reductions in fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions when up-and-down backup generation inefficiencies are taken into account.”

C. le Pair & K. de Groot offer an indirect test of the Hawkins nul-hypothesis using fossil fuel use and electrical generation data. The authors explicitly referenced Hawkins:

Kent Hawkins7 recently published a study of the technical characteristics of gas powered electricity generators, which are used for back-up of other units. He concluded : “The general conclusion is clear: industrial wind power does not produce the claimed benefits of reductions in fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions when up-and-down backup generation inefficiencies are taken into account.”

Hawkings in a review, noted the C. le Pair & K. de Groot findings

The study under review found that 100 percent of the claimed emissions savings from windpower was negated by fossil fuel backup to firm up wind’s intermittency. The calculator finds roughly similar results to that of le Pair and de Groot for the level of wind penetration in the Netherlands.

The Bentek Energy study does not mention Hawkins, but its summery of findings offers support for Hawkins's null-hypothesis.

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.

The Bentek study looks at two cases involving wind use in Colorado and Texas. Using the two case studies offers more confidence in the conclusions. In the Colorado case the report stated,

The preceding chapter documented the SO2, NOX and CO2 implications of two “wind events” defined as such by PSCO in their training manual. The important policy concern hinges on whether these types of events are common or whether the July 2 and Sept. 29, 2008, events are exceptional and rarely happen. To the degree that the events are exceptional, then the RPS standard appears to have little impact on levels of SO2 and NOX emissions. On the other hand, a troubling public policy question is raised if wind-induced coal cycling is common and generates higher levels of SO2 and NOX emissions. In that case, the mandates of the RPS standard are in direct conflict with the need to reduce SO2 and NOX in order to meet EPA ozone attainment requirements.

This chapter concludes that, although circumstantial, the evidence strongly suggests that the latter is in fact true: incidence of coal cycling is common and has risen sharply since introduction of wind generation, and in 2008 and 2009 the result has been significantly greater emissions of SO2, NOX and CO2 than would have occurred if the coal units had not been cycled.

The report also found,

In 2009, generation from PSCO’s coal-fired plants fell off by about 20%, but their emissions did not diminish proportionately. Again, cycling appears to be a central factor. In 2009, there were 1,327 cycling incidents and they resulted in creating between 398,000 and 6.8 million pounds of SO2, 80,000 and 3.1 million pounds of NOX and between 94,000 and 147,000 pounds of CO2 more than would have been generated had the plants been run stably.

The case study of carbon emissions for the ERCOT system found identical problems.

these wind-driven, coal- cycling events resulted in significantly more SO2 and NOX emissions than if wind generation had not been utilized. The same results were found on the PSCO system. Not only does wind generation not allow ERCOT utilities to save SO2, NOX and CO2 emissions, it is directly responsible for creating more SO2 and NOX emissions and CO2 emission savings are minimal at best.

Hawkins is a major figure in a growing debate about the carbon mitigation effectiveness of wind electrical generations. Hawkins offers his own account of the wind effectiveness. debate. If Hawkins and others who agree with him are correct, wind is an ineffective tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. New evidence is emerging that tends to contradict Hawkins null-hypothese, as he notes.

There is a notable consistency among these three approaches. Look for more studies, based on actual experience, to emerge from countries not now dependent on foreign markets for export of wind turbine products and services, confirming the inability of new renewables, especially wind, to contribute to the reduction in fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions reduction in electricity generation. In the absence of comprehensive, objective and transparent studies that finally settle the matter, policies in support of new renewables should be severely curtailed.

Given a growing body of evidence which appears to contradict Hawkins null-hypothesis, there is an urgent need for a public debate over the effectiveness of wind powered electrical generation as a carbon mitigation. A wind effectiveness debate should involve both decision makers, and the general public.

The EIA Foresees Failure in Fight Against Climate Change

Mathematician Mary Hutzler, is an important voice in energy forecasting. Before she left the Energy Information Agency in 2004, Mary had served as both the acting administrator and deputy administrator of the agency. She was also the director of the EIA’s Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. After 25 years with the agency, Mary in 2004 moved to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTSas where she served as the Associate Director of Statistical Programs). While at the BTS Mary served for 6 months as its Acting Director. During Mary's career at the EIA, she planned, directed, and managed all mid- and long-term analysis and forecasting at EIA, as well as the production of EIA’s annual forecasting publications. Hutzler oversaw development of the National Energy Modeling System, for which she received a Presidential Rank Award in 1999. Thus Mary Hutzler was for many years one of the top, if not the top energy analyst for the United States government.

Mary is thus uniquely qualified to analyze, and report EIA data. She gas just posted her analysis of the latest EIA 2035 energy forecast. Mary's conclusions are extremely sobering. We are loosing the war against AGW. Mary reports that the EIA's 2010 assessment indicates American carbon dioxide emissions will grow over the next 25 years. Hutzler states,

The agency expects liquid fuels and other petroleum demand to be up almost 10 percent by 2035, natural gas demand up by almost 7 percent, and coal demand up by 12 percent, all from 2008 levels.

She notes

Even with large gains in renewable capacity, fossil fuels will still dominate our energy landscape by 2035 to fuel the country’s economic growth expected to increase at 2.4 percent per year. Energy consumption is expected to increase by 14 percent by 2035 with large percentage increases in renewable fuels, but far larger absolute quantity increases in fossil fuels, making them the dominate source of energy for the foreseeable future. Carbon dioxide emissions will therefore continue to grow and EIA expects that growth to average 0.3 percent per year. However, due to structural changes in our economy and to efficiency improvements, carbon intensity (carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product) will continue to decline. EIA expects that decline to be 2.1 percent per year. Carbon dioxide emissions per capita also decline by 0.6 percent per year.

But does the EIA ignore the growth of renewables?

EIA is forecasting an . . . 81 percent for all forms of renewable energy (hydropower, biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal). Hydropower is expected to be 22 percent higher due to improved water conditions and some minor capacity additions, biomass 88 percent higher, and wind, solar, and geothermal combined 187 percent higher. . . .

The largest increase in renewable generating capacity is expected from wind power (46 gigawatts), followed by biomass (29 gigawatts), and solar power (13 gigawatts). Except for wind power, most of the renewable penetration is not in the central station generating sector, but at industrial sites (for biomass) and on residential and commercial rooftops (for solar). Because, of the lower capacity factors for wind and solar power, the increase in renewable generation comes mainly from biomass, which supplies almost half of the increase in renewable generation. Wind power supplies 32 percent of that increase, followed by hydropower (10 percent) and solar (4 percent).

For those of us who view biomass conversion to energy as a step back for soil conservationl, this forecast is extremely discouraging.

The EIA also foresees very little progress for Nuclear power.

EIA is forecasting an increase of 11 percent for nuclear energy,

The reason for EIA pessimism is clear, the German renewable model has not only failed, but failed dismally. A recent report from the Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung titled "Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energie" sets out the German renewables failure with brutal honesty.

* on-shore wind, widely regarded as a mature technology, requires feed-in tariffs that exceed the per-kWh cost of conventional electricity by up to 300% to remain competitive.
* (despite) having the second-largest installed wind capacity in the world, . . . the estimated share of wind power in Germany’s electricity production was 6.3%
* We estimate that the wind power subsidies may total 20.5 Bn € (US $28.1 Bn).

Solar PV performance was even worse. Solar PV had

* a feed-in tariff of 43 Euro-Cents (59 Cents US $) per kWh in 2009,

The total German solar subsidy including a feed in tariff between 2000 and 2009 cost an estimated

53.3 Bn € (US $73.2 Bn)

The feed in tariff alone cost German consumers

* 43 Euro-Cents (59 Cents US $) per kWh in 2009,

For this huge price the German renewable policy has lead to

* 6.3% of German electricity being generated by wind
*0.6% of German electricity being generated by solar PV.

In contrast German nuclear power plants, which the German Greens and Socialists were intent on shutting down, produce 28% of all German electricity. Thus without any recent investments, no subsidies, and despite political opposition German nuclear power produces 80% of German carbon free electricity. Urick Fahl of the University of Stuttgart estimates that it cost 7€ to eliminate a ton of CO2 with a European Pressurized Water Reactor. (For any who wonder the cost of eliminating a ton of CO2 with a LFTR could run as low as $1 per ton.) In contrast it costs between 611 and 716 € (US $1,050) per tonto eliminate CO2 with photovoltaics. The cost of carbon abatement with wind runs between 91 € and 54 € per ton, that is between 8 and 12 times the cost of carbon abatement with nuclear. Clearly further investments in renewables, coupled with a failure to set reasonable goals is the route to national suicide.

Daily Kos blogger "nnider" recently chose to leave Daily Kos because his use of the word stupid to describe critics of nuclear power was censored. But what can we say of people who favor mans of fighting AGW that are 100 to 1000 times less effective than nuclear power?

It is clear then that a lack of commitment to nuclear power, and especially a lack of commitment to the development of advanced forms of nuclear technology, will lead the world straight into disaster, and that the people who will be responsible for the disaster will be the greens who fight against nuclear power tooth and nail.