Alternative reduced CO2 wind back up systems

The work of Warren Katzenstein and Jay Apt, Peter Lang, and Peter Hawkins all seems to demonstrate that natural gas beck up of wind generation imposes choices and inefficiencies, that almost or completely the CO2 emissions benefits of wind. It would appear from their work that stand alone natural gas systems using combined cycle gas turbines, are either nearly as efficient at lowering natural gas emissions or actually more efficient as a wind plus open cycle gas turbines. Supporters of wind generation have noted that that wind generators are well matched to hydro-electricity, and indeed that seems to be the case in a few parts of the world, for example Scandinavia where wind generators in Denmark appear to compliment hydroelectricity from Norway and Sweden. In the United States, hydro resources have been almost entirely utilized, and are currently inadequate for wind back up in most high wind areas. Pumped Storage has been suggested, the the high cost of past pumped storage facilities suggest that the cost of nuclear reactors is competitive with the cost of pumped storage facilities with similar rated capacities, while the nuclear facilities would be far more flexible, and produce as much as 2 times as much electricity on an annual basis as pumped storage would. Compressed air energy storage (CAES) is a second form of backup proposed for wind generators. My investigation, however, revealed a surprising problem from CAES, radioactive radon gas would be brought to the surface with returning compressed air. The problem appears to be far more serious than the release of radioactive gases associated with nuclear power generation. My case study of proposed CAES project presented by the Ridge Energy Storage & Grid Services company to Texas State Energy Conservation Office in 2005 showed that 40% of the energy for the project would come from the burning of natural gas. CASE systems are huge geothermal heat pumps, and they return cold air. Humidity in the air freezes, and the ice can damage generator turbines. Heat lost in the CAES process represents lost energy from electricity used to compress the air. In evaluating the cost of wind generated electricity I stipulated

a cost for new West Texas wind of $2250 per name plate KW in 2009. Since the capacity factor of West Texas runs around .40, the adverage output West Texas wind producer can expect to pay $5625 produce KWs of electricity his windmill will average producing. Since only 70% of the electricity entering the CAES facility reaches the consumer, the wind producer must add 30% more capacity to compensate for the energy loss. Thus the price of the wind generated electry entering the CAES facility must compensate the wind producer for something like a $8000 capitol investment for every average kW sold to the CAES facility.

In addition the estimated cost of the Ridge Energy CAES facility was $765 per KW of electrical output, Thus we are looking at an investment of nearly $9000 per kW of electrical capacity and this does not count the cost of new electrical transmission lines from West Texas to energy hungry Dallas. In contrast

the 2008 cost of nuclear power is somewhere between $4000 and $5000 per kW (as opposed to an estimated $8000 to 12,000 figure during the middle of the next decade).

And nuclear plants can be located close to electricity markets. In addition, the nuclear plant would be far more flexible, and would produce more electricity on an annual basis than the wind + CAES combination. In addition I noted an alternative employment of the CAES system that no one seems to have thought of, the used of CAES in in nuclear cooling, that would produce a low cost nuclear CAES combined cycle:

It seems to have escaped the notice of most CASE advocates that CAES casn be teamed with nuclear power plants in innovative ways. Since it is more economical to keep reactors running at full power all night, suplus electricity produced at night could be used to store compressed air. During the day, compressed air can be used to expand the reactors daytime power output by as much as 40%. The air does not have to be heated with natural gas. Indeed the compressed air can be heated from the reactors waste heat, killing two birds with one stone, and conserving the water used for daytime reactor cooling, and the use of compressed air in cooling the reactor, would creat significant water use savings, allowing reactors to run even during drought conditions.

Just a thought, mind you.

I also looked at battery backup for wind, that was of course, way too expensive. In fact it was so expensive that I conducted a thought experiment,

Assume that the system operators chose to back up the 1 GW wind system with nuclear power rather than a redundant wind system plus batteries. The cost of the wind system would then drop to $2.7 billion plus $5 billion for nuclear backup or $7.7 billion. Quite obviously the nuclear backup would be cheaper, but now the wind is totally redundant, because the backup system can operate full time for just the added price of fuel. Thus the purely nuclear system would simply be a lower cost than a reliable wind system. The nuclear system would be more reliable, and could be counted on with a fairly high degree of certainty to produce at 100% of its rated capacity during peak electrical demand summer months.

Thus my conclusion was that Pumped Storage, CAES, and battery backups for wind were more expensive, less flexible, and would produce less electricity over time than electricity producing nuclear reactors.

The Economic Case for Eliminating Fossil Fuels Use

Even if we did not believe in AGW there are powerful reasons for quickly ending the use of Fossil fuels. My father found data which showed that for every GWy of electricity generated by coal fired power plants, there were as many as 100 deaths. Not only that but their are clear indicators that the use of liquid fossil fuels in transportation is associated with staggering problems problems. There has been a tremendous increase in asthma cases in advanced societies during the last 30 years. In the United States the number of individuals diagnosed with asthma has tripled. There are now over 20 million Americans who suffer from asthma. Research has shown that the number of hospital and ER admissions for acute breathing problems peak on days of heavy transportation related air pollution. We could lower
our national health care costs by up to 20% by eliminating the use of fossil fuels in the generation of electricity and in transportation. Researchers report that atmospheric carbon fuel particulates are on the rise in the Eastern United States. Repeated studies have shown that carbon fuel particulates have a direct negative impact on human health.

A few years ago a group of Canadian doctors began to look at the health related costs of producing electricity from coal. They found that atmospheric pollutants from coal fired electrical generating plants were a significant source of health problems in the provence of Ontario. There research found that air pollution from all sources kills more than 5,900 people each year in Onterio. A Ontario government follow up study found that coal-fired power plants in Omtario were responsible for up to 668 deaths. In addition, atmospheric pollutants from coal fired generators were responsible for 928 hospital admissions and 1,100 emergency room visits every year. The health related cost to the people in Ontario associated with generating electricity by burning coal was found to be $4.4 billion. When the added health care coasts associated with burning coal were added to the direct coasts of generating electricity at coal-fired generators, coal began to look a great deal more expensive than other electricity sources.

A more recent Canadian study found that Ontario hospitals received in one year 12,518 asthma related visits (7,825 children and 4,693 adults). Of the people making ER visits 847 children (10.8%) and 322 adults (6.9%) were admitted to the hospital. The number of children with asthma, the severity of asma attacks, and yje number of asthma related hospital admissions are increasing. A Canadian study found that the number of children getting asthma attacks was increasing and that one out of five Canadian children suffered from asthma. Over one third of Ontario health insurance expenses were asthma related. Australian researchers report that 19.2% of Australian children between 5 and 14 suffer from asthma. Australia researchers found that Australia has the second-highest reported death rate from asthma in the world, and that the asthma death rate among Australian children increasing by 50% between 1980 to 1990. The number of asthma sufferers in the United States grew from 6.7 million people in 1980 to 17.3 million in 1998, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Researchers have repeatedly found a relationship between asthma and auto related air pollution. particularly ozone and particulates. The auro related air pollution is directly related to burning fossile fuels - gasoline and diesel fuels - in our cars, trucks, trains, aircraft and ships. Thus an indirect cost of burning fossil fuels, is the added bruden of an epidemic of childhood asthma, and related healthcare costs for the medical treatment of asthma.

Although litte has yet been done to confront the health problems related to burning fossil fuels in Ontario cars, the Ontario Parliament decided to shut down Ontario's coal fired power plants, because of their health related coasts. When it explored its clean electrical generating options the Ontario government discovered that several older electricity generating reactors in Ontario had been shut down and mothballed. By reconditioning the mothballed reactors, much of Ontario's coal fired electrical generating coal fired enectrical generating capacity can be replaced for far less than the cost of building new power plants from scratch. A side effect will be that electricity will be generated without producing global warming causing CO2.

Similar solutions must be found for automobiles because, peak oil will soon make carbon based transportation fuels prohibitively expensive, because pollutants from transportation exhausts have contributed to a world wide asthma plague among children and to lung related health problems for over 15% of the population of the United States, and because auto related CO2 emissions threaten our future on the Planet Earth.

Ontario premier Daiton McGuinty is no fan or nuclear power. He recently stated: “I don’t like nuclear power,” but he also realizes that nuclear power is the only viable option for Ontario’s CO2 and pollutant free energy future: “Natural gas is too expensive, wind power is unreliable, coal plants pollute the air and Ontario’s hydroelectric potential has largely been maxed out, leaving nuclear power expansions ‘on the table’ for the province.”

Brian Wong has reported that the use of fossil fuels, not only burdens so society with added healthcare costs, but shortens the life expectancy of Europeans. Wong points out that chronic illness cost the American Economy over $1.3 trillion a year. Wong reports that 16.9% of Americans suffer from Pulmonary Conditions. We are talking about 50 million people whose health and life span are effected by atmospheric pollution form fossil fuels. Wong argues that by switching from coal fired electrical generation to nuclear generation, 40% of American rail freight hauling capaciry would be freed up, thus facilitating the transfer of freight from trucking to rail without large new capitol investments by the railroads.

I raised an asthmatic child, and spent many sleepless nights with him while he was having asthma attacks. This is a serious illness, a wide spread epidemic that quite literally effects millions of children. Because we know that the burring of fossil fuels is a major source of the problem, it is imperative that we eliminate the burning of fossil fuels in transportation and in the generating of electricity.

The health care savings from the elimination of fossil fuels will more than pay the cost of doing so. I have observed that great progress in the use of battery and ultra-capacitor technology. Given current technology hybrid cars with 40 to 60 mile battery ranges will be on the market within 5 years. Within 10 years 100 mile + plug in ranges will be quite likely.

Long range trucking should be eliminated, because of the health care problems associated with truck exhaust. Urban trucking can be conducted with battery powered trucks, while inter urban freight shipping could be transfered to rail. A second health care saving that would happen because of the elimination of interurban trucking would be the elimination of the accidental death and injuries caused by trucks on the highways.

Railroads can be electrified. Rail electrification and the transfer of freight to rail are rational responces of peak oil, particulate related health costs, and global warming. 10% of American oil use can be eliminated by shifting freight from diesel trucks to electrified rail.

One does not have to believe in AGW to see the health advantages and savings in health care costs that could be gained by stopping the use of fossil fuels in electrical generation and in transportation.

.